BRITISH LABOR 
AND THE WAR 

Reconstructors for 
a New JVorld 



BY 
PAUL U. KELLOGG 

AND 

ARTHUR GLEASON 




NEW YORK 

BONI AND LIVERIGHT 

1919 



^f>AT 



>* 



Copyright, ipig 
By BONI & LIVERIGHT, Inc. 



j^y _o igjy 



ICIA5254U3 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction vii 

PART I 

THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 
CHAPTER 

I The Workers' Show of Hands 3 

II The New Majority in the British Labour Party ii 

III The Swing Toward the Left in the British Trades 

Union Congress 18 

IV British Labor United on War Aims . . . . . 27 
V The I. L. P. and the Left 33 

VI The Nottingham Meeting 42 

VII The New Issue and Its Engineers 52 

PART II 

THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

VIII The Inter- Allied Conference in London ... 61 

IX Allied Labor's Wae Aims 67 

X Two-Edged: Sword or Ploughshare 74 

XI Another English Round Table 85 

PART III 

THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

XII The Workers at Westminster 105 

XIII Labor and the New Social Order 125 

PART IV 
woe kers' control 

XIV The Shop Stewards and Their Significance . . 149 
XV Industrial Unionism 168 

XVI Self-Government in Industry 178 

iii 



iv CONTENTS 

PART V 

THE NEW ALIGNMENT 
CHAPTER PAGE 

XVII The Jubilee Year of the British Trades Union 

Congress ' . 197 

XVIII The Right Strikes Back 214 

XIX American Labor Out of It 230 

XX Labor in Leading Strings ........ 244 

XXI The So-Called Split 257 

XXII In Franklin's Footsteps ........ 273 

XXIII Democracy Comes to the Test 305 

PART VI 

conclusion 

XXIV Towards Democracy in Reconstruction . . . 333 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX 

I Statement of War Aims 343 

Adopted at a joint conference of the societies affili- 
ated with the British Trades Union Congress and 
the British Labour Party, at Central Hall, West- 
minster, London, December 28, 191 7 

II Memorandum on War Aims 352 

Agreed upon at the Inter-Allied Labor and Socialist 
Conference, Central Hall, Westminster, London, 
S. W., February 20-24, 1918 

III Constitution of the British Labour Party . . 367 

As adopted by the party conference held in London, 
February 21, 19 18 

IV Labor and the New Social Order 372 

A draft report on reconstruction submitted by the 
executive committee of the British Labour Party at 
the 17th Annual Conference, Nottingham, January 
23-25, 1918 



CONTENTS v 

APPENDIX PAGE 

V Resolutions on Reconstruction 395 

Adopted by the Conference of the British Labour 
Party, London, June 26, 1918 

VI Platform of British Labour Party in the General 

Elections, December, 1918 ....... 413 

VII Interim (Whitley) Report on Joint Standing In- 
dustrial Councils 418 

Sub-committee on Relations between Employer and 
Employed; Reconstruction Committee 

VIII Second (Whitley) Report on Joint Standing In- 
dustrial Councils 427 

Committee on Relations between Employers and 
Employed; Ministry of Reconstruction 

IX Supplementary (Whitley) Report on Works 

Committees 436 

Committee on Relations between Employers and 
Employed; Ministry of Reconstruction 

X Industrial Councils and Trade Boards . . . 440 
Memorandum by the Minister of Reconstruction 
and the Minister of Labour 

XI National Council of the Pottery Industry . . 449 

XII Workshop Committees . 452 

Suggested lines of development by C. G. Renold, 
Manchester 

XIII Summary of Conclusions 477 

Reached by a group of twenty British Quaker 
Employers after four days' discussion in 1917-18 

XIV Shop Committees and Labor Boards, by Arthur 

Gleason 488 

Reprinted from the Survey, May, 1917 

Index 497 



INTRODUCTION 

Public attention has been absorbed in what has been happen- 
ing in Russia. Now in Germany. The working class revolutions there 
have been so much more spectacular as to have quite overshadowed 
the formidable British labor movement or to have been confused 
with it. 

Some writers on the great war have said that the thing which 
set this war off from any known for a thousand years has been 
that it was the wrestlings of whole peoples ; that here we have been 
dealing with folk movements unlike any that had occurred 
since the days when Saxons and Franks, Teutons and Huns and 
Slavs swept over western Europe. However that may be, there has 
been another folk movement at work in the midst of war in Europe 
which is tremendously significant. It asserted itself disruptively in 
various stages of the Russian revolution. The same forces are 
at work elsewhere. And in England we have the attempt to harness 
them in a great constructive working class movement which will 
make for changes in the economic and political life, in the period 
following the war, as sweeping as the changes wrought by those 
middle-class movements which manifested themselves in the ascend- 
ancy of nationalism, and in the struggle for liberalism within the 
nations. 

In all European history, we have had in England forecasts of 
fundamental changes that were coming on the continent. The English 
reformation preceded the continental reformation ; the English swing 
to parliamentary government and democracy preceded the political 
revolutions on the continent. For the most part Englishmen did 
not go through anything like the travail and bitterness which the 
continental peoples traversed in running the same course. They did 
not come out at the same point; but they showed the trend, and 
they showed it in advance. Even so, what has been going forward 
under the stress of war among the wage-earning population of the 
island commonwealth foreshadows changes which will affect and 
condition the whole fabric of western civilization. 

Being a folk movement, it is not possible to compress it into 
any one channel. It is not like the single tax movement, or the 
prohibition movement, or the municipal ownership movement as 

vii 



viii INTRODUCTION 

we have known them in this country, because these are propaganda 
given over to a single issue. The British labor movement is rather 
the expression at a hundred points of great tidal impulses at work in 
the common life. This book can best serve American readers by 
telling of certain of its eager manifestations — international, political, 
industrial — that will play an organic part in the period of recon- 
struction. 



PART I 
THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 



CHAPTER I 

THE WORKERS' SHOW OF HANDS 

At the time the Allied premiers met in Paris in January, 191 8, 
a dry remark was credited to Georges Clemenceau, rugged figure in 
the political life of France since before the days of the Commune. 

"Napoleon was not so remarkable as we thought," he said. 
"After all, he fought only coalitions." 

His epigram put the case for the efforts then on foot to bring 
about unity among the Allies, both in military operations and in 
statesmanship. It was natural that the same forces should be at 
work among the workers as among the governments. And it is 
characteristic that, just as the British were the last of the great 
European states to get their full measure of man-power and indus- 
trial cap? city into swing in the war and, once in, thereafter took 
over much of the heavy end of the front; so now, after three years 
of slow crystallization of opinion, the British labor movement came 
forward to bear the brunt in an Allied labor offensive. 

In pursuit of its objectives, this labor drive combined unremit- 
ting resistance to Prussian militarism in the field with what Arthur 
Henderson called the diplomacy of democracy. It drew its dynamic 
from stirrings deep down in the working life of Great Britain. 

Whether the war was to end through a military decision or 
through negotiations, the British workers served notice that they 
j purposed to have a say in the settlement of the struggle in which 
they had spent and been spent so unstintedly. They were pro- 
foundly at odds with the whole scheme of foreign relations which 
broke down in August, 19 14. Thev felt that they had paid the 
pipe", and they did not mean to leave their security against future 
wars solely in the hands of the governing classes with whom they 
identified this war. They were not sanguine as to the ability of 
those classes to get out of it what they went into it for, much less 
to lay a new world order that would stand. They looked to the 
common feeling and brotherhood of the masses the world over as 
the only factor sufficiently forceful to checkmate competing com- 
mercialisms^ — as a bond to hold the world together, greater than 
all the international laws and courts and treaties that could be 
devised. They forecasted a recoil against the old order of things 



4 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

which in the period of reconstruction would effect changes in the 
economic life, nation by nation, profound as those in the political 
life following the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars, when 
by the 30's the husks of feudalism were thrown aside and the middle 
classes asserted themselves in terms of political democracy and rep- 
resentative government. With this difference: education, newspaper 
reading and interchange of ideas now quicken and bind deeper 
reaches of the social order. These the great war had cut asunder 
and isolated. But the working classes, nation by nation, had gone 
through like experience, and out of their common travail might 
they not find common purpose? 

Thus it was that the British labor men, and behind them Allied 
labor, set going their procedure to find out, if they could, where 
the German and Austrian working classes (with whom before the 
war they had much in common) stood close to them on the issues 
of the struggle in which they were pitted against each other; what 
differences separated them; which of these differences were due to 
ignorance and distortion, and so might be swept away by letting in 
the light, which of these differences were due to obstacles thrown 
in the way by other interests in the national life, and so might 
be combated internally; which of these differences, if any, were in 
truth irreconcilable, and so must be fought through to a finish. 
And they believed that their statement of war aims brought the 
issues back to the unimperialistic bedrock on which they (regardless 
of what motives actuated other groups in their own nation or in 
other nations) had gone into the war, and on which they intended 
to fight to the end — the issues of self-determination, which had 
clustered about Belgium and which were democracy's answer to 
militarism and conquest. They believed they could strip off those 
elements of competitive aggrandizement — forcible annexation, puni- 
tive indemnities, economic boycotts and the rest — which had come 
to encrust these first purposes and had given color on every hand 
to the propaganda that each people was fighting a war of defense. 
They believed that these issues were so close to the mainsprings 
of working class feeling that the German socialists would get out 
of hand if their majority leaders refused to meet them. They 
believed that they could drive a wedge between the German work- 
ing classes and their governments which, sooner or later, would 
rend the central empires if the workers met the issues and the 
governments refused. 

They were not visionaries, these labor leaders; they did not 
expect to unravel in a night a skein which had been tangled and 
knotted by years of blood and strain. They did not waste time in 
debating whether it could be cut with the sword, with those who 



THE WORKERS' SHOW OF HANDS 5 

had foreshadowed a swift military decision with every spring. 
Rather, without stinting their support to the armies in the field, 
they set about the slow task of putting as much courage, patience, 
hard thinking and mass action into their labor offensive as went, 
say, into preparing for a half mile of artillery fire, barrage and 
infantry assault. And they held it as reprehensible to ignore and 
neglect the marshaling of civil pressure in the great struggle as it 
would have been to ignore the air service or the navy. 

They were not defeatists, these labor leaders. They were as 
determined in their project in the fall of 191 7, when the British 
second army thought it had turned the corner of the war at 
Paeschendale Ridge, as they were at their meeting the February 
following, when the whole talk on the western front was of how to 
meet the anticipated German drive. They did not abandon it in 
the weeks of strain when the German armies forged toward Amiens 
and Paris. They held firmly to it in the midst of the tremendous 
counter-offensives of the summer of 1918, in which British and 
Colonials, French, Belgians, Italians and Americans jointly drove 
the invaders back. They simply did not take stock in the cry that\ 
( you could not wage war and exert statesmanship at the same time.. 
They did not fear that labor negotiations would demoralize the 
Allied armies; they held that with whole nations at war, civilian 
morale was as vital as army morale, and that secret treaties, dickers 
over territory, the mistrust and lack of confidence which come of 
ill-defined purposes, were forces of disintegration which could be 
overcome only by bringing the purposes of the war unequivocally 
out into the open and out at a level upon which the average man 
would be fully willing to continue to lay down his life and that 
of his son. 

They were not for peace-at-any-price. Their statement of the 
conditions on which they would continue their support of the 
war and on which they were prepared to urge peace were affirmative. 
They were simply through with talking about victory like buying 
a pig in a poke; about winning the war, without setting forth what 
ends you hoped to win and without keeping your mind open to 
any less humanly costly way of achieving those ends. 

They were not for a separate peace. Their whole procedure 
was to organize a common front; and to do it, not, as they believed 
the governments had done prior to President Wilson's initiative, 
by arriving at a multiple of their several ambitions, but by cleaving 
through to what were the great common denominators of democratic 
purpose. 

They were not Bolsheviki. The British labor offensive antedated 
the advent of the Bolshevik regime. It was the Russian Mini- 



6 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

malists who cabled concurrence with the British statement; it was 
with their leaders that they had old associations. But, in common 
with the workers of all Europe, the British were greatly stirred by 
the Russian revolutions, and they ascribed in no small part to the 
Allies themselves (in failing to meet the Russian provisional govern- 
ment half way in the matter of war aims, and in blocking the 
Stockholm meetings) the overthrow of Kerensky, the cave-in of the 
Russian armies, and all that those events came to mean. And they 
believed an outcome on the eastern front altogether different from 
the subsequent Brest-Litovsk treaties was possible if the same atti- 
tude were not persisted in toward the Soviets. 

They were not, in fine, anything that the jingo press described 
them to be in the earlier stages of the movement, and they were 
not concerned with what it ascribed to them now, except as this 
afforded powder to their agitation and further identified the con- 
trary policy with those very forces with which, for twenty years 
past, the British labor movement had wrestled in forcing through 
domestic industrial and political reforms. Their positions, here 
sketched in broad outline, were, of course, not altogether different 
from those held painfully by individual thinkers and small groups in 
each of the warring countries, individuals and groups that were 
currently damned for their pains, and that lacked both the mass and 
momentum to get their proposals across to the general public. 
But here, shouldering -their way up into the arena not only of 
discussion but of decision, came a body of men who refused, quite as 
doggedly as the lonelier prophets, to be dislodged by conventional 
blasts of denunciation and whom the very winds of controversy 
served only to reveal as a rapidly mustering host. 

That this new leadership in western Europe would spring from 
the labor movement might have been foreseen. 

With hold-over parliaments, more or less out of touch with the 
changes in public opinion, and with coalition governments, short- 
circuiting the development of party sentiment as such, the policies 
of the older party groups failed to crystallize while the war was on 
in a way clearly to differentiate them. Thus, the British Labour 
Party found its opportunity ; the elimination of its secretary, Arthur 
Henderson, from the British War Council by way of the "door- 
mat" on August n, 191 7, being the occasion for its action but 
not its cause. Within the succeeding twelve months it slowly 
formulated a coherent program, both of foreign and internal 
policy, which could be weighed against that of the government in 
power and which offered an alternative, fresher approach to issues 
of war and peace; a program which on its international side 
could be taken over by kindred groups in the Allied nations who 



THE WORKERS' SHOW OF HANDS 7 

had been groping for such leadership, and which had the tremendous 
reinforcement of being, seemingly, more in line with the free states- 
manship of the American president than the course their own 
governments were able or chose to follow. 

That it should be in England that this new labor leadership 
would emerge might equally well have been forecast. Elsewhere, 
the groupings had been too fragmentary; the cleavages between 
extremes. In France and Germany, the socialists had been split by 
the war. The minority factions had taken a position of opposition 
to their governments but that had been not only on matters of 
policy, but on the prosecution of the war itself. In Italy, it had 
been the majority, but the working classes in the Italian cities had 
not as yet found common cause with the peasants; the proletariat 
was immature. In France the syndicalists presented a separate wing 
of the labor movement, discounting both the parliamentary groups 
of socialists. Since the fall of 191 7, Italy, like France, had been 
invaded, and the psychology of the situation had been against any 
organized action which might be construed as counter to the prime 
duty of getting the invaders out. In undefeated, uninvaded Eng- 
land, the labor movement was freer to assert itself along lines more 
nearly analogous to those possible in peace times; and it did so. 

Moreover, the British Labour Party was made up largely of men 
who had been "for the war" and who were indispensable to it; who 
had the disconcerting effrontery to lay down with one hand plans 
for a great memorial in London to their fellows who had fallen in 
the conflict, and with the other to set going the nominating machin- 
ery for contesting not only the 35 seats they then held in Parliament, 
but some 300 more. 

The Miners' Federation of Great Britain, for example, with four 
hundred thousand unionists in the British forces, could not lightly 
be discounted as "slackers." Nor could the Labour Party be set 
aside as negligible, — with its 2,700,000 members, in the overt act 
of stretching their tent ropes to include all workers "by hand or 
by brain," — with testimony of social unrest drawn by government 
inquiries from every part of the kingdom, — and with fair prospect 
that the troops when demobilized would strike hands with them. 

So it was that after a Russian government had gone down with 
its plea for a fresh statement of war aims unmet; after the 
Russian soviet program had for two months gone unanswered; x 

1 The All Russian Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates enu- 
merated 15 points in the form of instructions to its delegate to the Allied 
War Conference, Paris ; the Bolsheviki took over the government' and 
organized a council of National Commissioners on November 7, 1917, in 
whose name Leon Trotsky, as national commissioner for foreign affairs, 
sent out the document of 15 points as a "formal offer of an immediate 



8 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

after a certain noble peer had been soundly scolded as a pacifist 
Tory for writing a piece to the papers; after President Wilson's 
earlier declarations had been met with altogether vague if hearty 
assents; after the U. D. C. leaders and, at their side, a score of 
like-minded commoners who had never broken silence before, had 
been denounced by spokesmen for the Cabinet for raising afresh 
the issue of war aims at Westminster; after all these things, a 
delegate conference of the British Trades Union Congress (the 
industrial organization of British labor) and the Labour Party (the 
political organization of British labor) came forward with their 
joint statement of war aims on December 28, 191 7, and smoked the 
administration out. A carefully prepared statement was given out 
by the premier at a conference with labor on the man power bill on 
January 5, 1918. There followed President Wilson's world-encir- 
cling message of fourteen points which the English labor leaders 
hailed as kindred to their own; and which the French parliamen- 
tarians, in a remarkable session of the Chamber, claimed as breath- 
ing the very spirit of France, marred only by the consciousness 
that their own government had not given it utterance first. Whatever 
considerations inside the British War Cabinet, and whatever com- 
mitments to the Allies outside, had inhibited Lloyd George from 
coming forward earlier, no longer held after labor's show of hands. 
Rightly or wrongly, the labor group felt that they were the only 
force strong enough to have opened the way for his statement; 
the only force strong enough in the future to bring the British 
government into line on those crucial points of President Wilson's 
statement, and of their own, where the British official statement was 
silent; where France and Italy had not spoken. 



America entered the new year (19 18) with its full weight 
thrown in the inter-Allied war councils for that unified command 
of the armies on the western front which in Foch's hands, and 
supported by fresh and ever fresher divisions from over seas, was 

armistice on all fronts and the immediate opening of peace negotiations ;" 
followed by an invitation of Dec. 6, to all embassies and legations to 
participate and by the issuance by the Russian plenipotentiaries of six 
'basic principles" at Brest-Litovsk, Dec. 22. Count Czernin's six clauses 
of December 25 were in reply to these Russian formulations; and Lloyd 
George in the course of his statement of January 5 and President Wilson 
in the course of his message of January 8 made rejoinder to Count 
Czernin. Clearly the Allied governments felt the obligation of making a 
counter statement of war aims at a time they were holding aloof from the 
Brest-Litovsk meetings. The initiative of the Bolsheviki as well as the 
pressure < of British labor was a factor in the new public declarations. 
This series of documents was published in "A League of Nations" by the 
World Peace Foundation, Boston, 1918. 



THE WORKERS' SHOW OF HANDS 9 

to throw back in defeat Hindenburg's supreme effort to break 
through. It entered the new year with the President's message on 
war aims which, in the words of an English journalist, was worth 
a dozen army corps and a regiment of angels to the democrats of 
Western Europe. 

British labor also entered the new year with freshly girded 
strength. Nothing would have been worse than for the British 
people to have come into the weeks of strain throughout the spring 
and early summer of 19 18 with the purposes of the war as fogged 
as they had been the year preceding. It is not too much to say 
that, while the bloody gains of the German drive in France were 
strengthening the grip of the Prussian imperialists upon Germany, 
the British labor offensive proved a counter force for coherence 
and endurance at home. In its own statement of war aims and 
in the statement it elicited from the British government, at the 
close of 191 7, it gave the common people afresh the democratic 
issues that had fired them in those earlier days of trial in 19 14. 
So doing, like the American president, British labor gave them to 
the common people of all the Allies. 

Meeting in London in February, 19 18, representatives of labor 
and socialist groups in England, France, Italy and Belgium (Ruma- 
nian, South Slav and South African delegations sitting in) accepted 
in substance the war aims put out by British labor in December; 
called on socialist and labor groups in the central powers to match 
this declaration; projected a consultative conference with them while 
the war was on if the conditions laid down were met; endorsed 
plans for an international labor conference to sit concurrently with 
the official peace conference whenever held; and called for a labor 
representative on each national delegation to the latter. 

Thus, the early winter months of 191 7-18, which marked the 
turn of the tide in Allied unity in waging war and in democratic 
statesmanship, witnessed three steps in the deliberate execution of 
the British labor offensive. 

Their first step was to get unanimity on war aims among the 
labor bodies of Great Britain; their second to bank up majority 
and minority labor groups among the Allies behind a common 
program; their third to outflank the trench deadlocks and diplo- 
matic inhibitions that for four years had isolated the working 
classes of Europe, and to get their conception of an unimperialistic 
settlement before the workers of the Central Empires. In so 
doing they sought to find out for themselves first-hand whether 
or not they might help open a way to a peace which would not 
only be safe for democracy, but democracy's own. 

The succeeding chapters in this section [Part I] will interpret 



io THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

the slow crystallization of working class opinion in England first 
in the Labour Party and then in the Trades Union Congress which, 
in 191 7, had led up to the first of these steps. Succeeding sections 
will interpret the later steps [Part II] ; the deep-seated forces which 
impelled them in the political [Part III] and economic [Part IV] 
life of Great Britain; labor's share in the swift events of 19 18, lead- 
ing up to the armistice and the end of the war [Part V] ; and the 
presage inherent in these things of British labor's part in the new 
epoch of reconstruction [Part VI]. 



CHAPTER II 

THE NEW MAJORITY IN THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY 

If we go back but a year, we find the British Labour Party not 
at all taking the initiative in the matter of labor diplomacy, but 
rather hanging back. In January, 19 17, its convention at Man- 
chester voted against participating in an international conference 
as promoted by the Stockholm committee. In March, 191 7, its 
executive turned down an invitation from the French Socialist 
Party for a conference of Allied socialists in Paris; in May, 19 17, 
it turned down invitations to consultations arranged by the Dutch- 
Scandinavian committee in Stockholm. It did not respond to the 
announcement shortly thereafter that the Russian Council of Work- 
men's and Soldiers' Deputies had decided to issue invitations "to 
the socialist and labor parties of all nations to a conference, with 
a view to securing the adoption of a general working class policy" — 
other than to appoint a committee to visit Russia, which never set 
sail. 

Meanwhile, Arthur Henderson, then a member in the British 
War Cabinet and one of the labor leaders at that time opposed 
to an international conference, had proceeded to Petrograd on a 
government mission, in the course of which he met the executive 
of the Workmen's and Soldiers' Council and spoke to them in his 
capacity as secretary of the Labour Party. It was made clear to 
him that, whether the British workers participated or not, an 
attempt would be made by the Russian workers to hold the con- 
ference. Out of his experience in Russia, Henderson came to 
believe that unless negotiations for a constructive peace were asso- 
ciated in the minds of the Russian people with their provisional 
government, it would crumble — as it later did; he felt that many 
confused ideas were current in Russia as to the aims for which his 
fellow countrymen were continuing the struggle; that such a con- 
ference would clear them up; and that it would be "highly inad- 
visable and perhaps dangerous for the Russian representatives to 
meet representatives from enemy and neutral countries alone." On 
the other hand, he made it equally clear that British labor could 
only join in the plan if it were turned from an obligatory confer- 
ence to a consultation for the purpose of exchanging views. 



12 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

I made it as plain as I was capable of doing that if a conference 
was held in which we participated there could be no question of 
negotiating peace terms. I pointed out that the socialists and labor 
parties in this and other countries were not yet the nation, and that 
the only people who were responsible for negotiating actual peace 
terms were the governments of the respective countries, for upon 
them rested, on behalf of the people, the entire responsibility. 

— This paragraph is quoted from Henderson's report to a special 
party conference held in London in August, 191 7, which followed 
consultations between Russian and British labor leaders in London, 
and Russian, British and French labor leaders in Paris, at which 
the British reconsidered their decision to stay out of the conference; 
and on the other hand, its non-binding character was agreed to by 
the others. On Henderson's recommendation and by a vote of 
1,846,000 to 550,000, the British Labour Party approved the 
amended plan. 

The parting of the ways came at a special conference held by 
the party at Central Hall, Westminster, London, on August 10, 
1917, when by the majority of 1,296,000 the membership sustained 
the executive in its resolution: 

That the invitation of the international conference at Stock- 
holm be accepted on condition that the conference be consultative 
and not mandatory. 

Preliminary canvasses, according to the London Times, indicated 
that the vote of the miners would carry the decision one way or 
another; "while the miners' decision was, in turn, believed to be 
largely dependent on the statement which Arthur Henderson, M.P., 
labor's representative on the War Cabinet, would make." 

Henderson's speech carried the miners, and in the afternoon 
the resolution came before the conference on motion of representa- 
tives of two of the most powerful trade union groups of Great 
Britain, W. C. Robinson of the textile workers moving it, W. Carter 
of the miners seconding. The attack came from the right, when 
J. Sexton of the Liverpool Dock Labourers (47,000 members) moved 
an amendment that: 

While agreeing that he (Henderson) was actuated by a sincere 
desire to serve the best interests of the British democracy, no case 
had been made out for the appointment of delegates to the Stock- 
holm or any other conference which would include delegates from 
enemy countries. 

There were times, he said, when loyalty to an executive, particularly 
in a case like this, meant treason to the rank and file. To go to 



NEW MAJORITY IN THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY 13 

Stockholm, he concluded, was to meet men who had not repudiated 
the brutality of their masters, men whose hands were red with the 
blood of Capt. Fryatt, Nurse Cavell and the crew of the Belgian 
Prince. When they had repudiated these crimes, and not before, 
his objection to meeting them would be gone. 

His attack was supported by Henderson's fellow labor members 
of the ministry — G. N. Barnes (Minister of Pensions), who shortly 
supplanted Henderson as a member of the War Cabinet, and who 
denounced the proposal of a consultative conference as a distinction 
between Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum; and George Roberts, M.P., 
then secretary of the Board of Trade, to whose mind Henderson's 
speech was little more than an endeavor to "take a scenic photograph 
through a Scotch mist." 

Said Barnes: 

I say that if you go there you will go to discuss with the Germans 
and the Russians, and with the Dutch-Scandinavians as a make- 
weight, or a make-believe, with no other purpose than to vote for 
peace on any terms. ... It is a matter as between tweedledum and 
tweedledee whether you are there in a consultative conference or 
a mandatory one. It seems to me the difference is very small and 
if you go at all you will be in the same position whether it is one or 
the other. The main fact is that if you decide to go there you will 
be going there to discuss terms of peace. Is this the time to discuss 
terms of peace in that manner? (Cries of "Yes" and "No.") I 
think it is not. Whatever are the ostensible purposes of the con- 
ference, you will be drawn into a discussion of the formula "No 
indemnities and no annexations." Do not let us be misled by 
phrases. This war will end in a way that will be determined by 
the relative strength of parties at the end of it, and if we end this 
war now the Germans will decide for you what is meant by "no 
indemnities and no annexations." I decline to be led away by any 
such phrase-mongering. I believe that the only way of ending this 
war is the way in which our boys at the front are trying to end it. 

Said Roberts: 

The Stockholm Conference would be the greatest embarrassment 
to those who were seeking to bring order out of chaos in Russia. 
What M. Kerensky and his government needed now was to be left 
alone. The Stockholm Conference would only sow further dissen- 
sion and play into the hands of the greatest enemies of law and 
order in Russia. As to misrepresentations of British views and per- 
version of the British cause in Russia, parts of their own movement 
were responsible for it as much as anything. The conference would 
be futile unless it included representatives of American labor. Mr. 
Gompers and his colleagues had scented the futility of the thing, 



14 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

but they saw the German hand behind it. The German agents in 
Petrograd had played upon the inexperienced representatives of the 
Workmen's and Soldiers' Council, and had engineered the movement 
not because they hoped it would reestablish fraternity, but because 
they hoped that the purpose of the Allied nations could be 
again distorted, and because they knew that at the conference 
they would have an overwhelming representation and could carry 
everything before them. The conference would weaken the national 
spirit and prejudice the Allied cause and he was certain that the 
great mass of the people were opposed to it. The German people 
were as united and determined for the war as when they began it. 
They had gloated over every barbarity. For representatives of the 
British working classes to go into conference with representatives of 
such people would be a gross betrayal of the men who constituted 
our great army. 

As one now of a minority in the British Labour Party executive, 
Roberts with sarcasm congratulated Henderson on being welcomed 
into the new majority. The welcome had come from Ramsay Mac- 
Donald, who for a while was unable to proceed owing to a fusillade 
of interruptions from various parts of the hall, and the chairman, 
after much ringing of his bell, had to appeal to the conference to 
support him in maintaining order. The incident put in terms of 
personality the shift which had taken place. MacDonald stated 
the case for the "left," which now for the first time since 19 14 
found itself part of the majority; saying, according to the London 
Times: 

Russia wanted their support. The revolution which awakened 
such enthusiasm in their hearts, and struck through with a mag- 
nificent beam of light the darkness that was lying over Europe, 
tottered and trembled day by day, and the one thing that would give 
it a firm democratic foundation was that the democracy of Russia 
should be assured that the democracy of Europe was consulted on 
the war and on war aims. British labor was asked to go to that 
consultation, and to put their views alongside the views of other 
people, to assure Russia that there was no imperialism in this war, 
and that democracy was fighting the battle of democracy from an 
international point of view. That is what Russia wants. Is British 
labor not going to it? 

And that is not all. Do not we want to-day from the interna- 
tional democracies of Europe a clear statement of what we stand 
for, so that he who runs may read? To-day we are revising our 
aims officially. Why cannot we revise our aims democratically at 
the same time? Why cannot we lay down in clause after clause 
what we will regard as the security upon which alone peace can be 
made and ask our German friends (loud protest) how far they 
agree with them and how far they disagree with them? 



NEW MAJORITY IN THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY 15 

Before the vote, Henderson's support from the center was voiced 
by J. H. Thomas of the National Union of Railwaymen. He was 
quoted as saying: 

He hoped that they would hear no more of the enemies of our 
country and the friends of our country. He was as true a patriot 
as anybody, and he was satisfied that no German would browbeat 
him or compel him to do anything contrary to the best interests of 
this country. Did they condemn the meeting of Lord Newton with 
German representatives a few weeks ago, which resulted in immense 
good to our men in the enemy's hands? Did any one believe that 
at some time or other they would not have to meet the enemy? . . . 

He would warn those who threatened that steps would be taken 
to prevent any delegate going, no matter what the decision of the 
conference might be, to be careful what they were doing. The time 
wculd come when those who aided and abetted that policy would be 
the first to suffer. 

In its comment on this meeting, the London Times scored 
Henderson and declared that his position as a minister was clearly 
at an end (as it straightway proved) — "not because of any diver- 
gence about the war, but because his maneuvers during the last 
fortnight are incompatible with every principle of solid govern- 
ment;" i.e., his good faith in "attempting the impossible perform- 
ance of running one policy as a labor leader and another as a 
member of the cabinet." It denounced the Stockholm meeting as 
follows: 

One has only to ask what belligerent governments are in favor 
of the conference at all in order to see what lies under the surface. 
The only governments which patronize it are the enemy govern- 
ments; all the Allied nations are against it. Surely that is enough 
to show its true purpose. Whether it is called mandatory or con- 
sultative, it is a trick to get representatives of allied labor to hobnob 
with "our German friends" and to film them in the act in order to 
cheer up the German people and convince them that the peace they 
desire — a German peace — is at hand, if they will only maintain their 
faith in Hindenburg and U-boats. 

The Times attributed the three and one-half to one vote in 
part to the system by which the miners, railway men and other 
large bodies voted in blocks — an element of the strength of the 
central group and a cause for complaint on the part of both the 
extreme right and left; but the "real explanation" was to be found, 
it said, in Henderson's speech: 

The point is that there are two Stockholm conferences, or two 
conceptions of that elusive gathering. The first is that its decisions 
shall be binding on those who attend it; the second that it shall be 



16 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

purely consultative and not bind anybody. Now the invitation is 
to a conference of the first kind, but yesterday's decision is an 
acceptance of the second. It is, in fact, the acceptance of an invi- 
tation which has not been given and a rejection of the one that has. 

The Times, was right in its analysis of the paradox of invita- 
tions: British labor cut the knot by separating itself from Stock- 
holm and its antecedents, and by doing its own inviting to a con- 
ference of its own fashioning; and, six months later, the Times was 
saying that its workmanship was good. Four of those six months 
were spent in the slow formulation of platform and procedure. 
Henderson was charged by the Prime Minister with breach of 
faith as a member of the War Cabinet, and resigned ; and announce- 
ment was made that the British government would issue no pass- 
ports to delegates to attend the Stockholm meeting. An inter- 
Allied conference called by the British section of the Inter- 
national Socialist Bureau [London, August 2.1, 191 7] brought 
together sixty-eight delegates representing eight nationalities, but 
reached no definite agreements with respect either to war aims 1 or 
to the conditions of an international conference, and apparently got 
snarled up over the question of minority and majority representa- 
tions and votes. 

Then it was that the British labor movement started in to build 
up from the bottom. And the first opportunity which offered 
showed the overwhelming swing of feeling among the rank and 
file. This was at the Blackpool meeting in early September (191 7) 
of the Trades Union Congress — the inclusive national organization 
of British trade unions in the economic field. By a vote of 2,849,- 
000 to 91,000, a compromise resolution which was put forward by 
Robert Smillie and seconded by Will Thorne, threw the Stockholm 
meeting as such into the junk heap, emphatically protested as a 
matter of principle against the government's refusal to give pass- 
ports, declared that a general agreement among the working classes 
of the Allied nations was "a fundamental condition of a successful 
international congress" and recommended that the Parliamentary 
Committee of the congress be empowered to "assist, arrange and 
take part in such a conference." The chronicle of this action of 
the Trades Union Congress will be found in Chapter IV. 

The executive of the Labour Party accepted this resolution as 
a basis for joint action with the Trades Union Congress. A joint 
committee was created to formulate a memorandum on war aims, 2 

*The original British Labour Party memorandum on war aims, drawn 
up for this August, 1917, conference, was the basis of the later memoranda. 
2 Appendix I. 



NEW MAJORITY IN THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY 17 

and the joint conference of the two bodies held in London in Decem- 
ber, 1917, adopted the joint draft. The chronicle of this joint- 
action will be found in Chapter V. 

These characteristics stand out, throughout, in the procedure of 
the British labor offensive, as distinct from the movements which 
preceded it: That its proposed international labor and socialist 
conference was to be consultative and not mandatory; that it was 
to be a voluntary exchange of views and not an attempt to assume 
government function, and that it was in no way to interfere with 
military effort. Further, the procedure provided not for a loose 
body of labor groups meeting for the first time in the presence 
of a solid Germanic delegation, but for joint action by a real alliance 
of Allied labor; it provided for going into the conference with a 
deliberately formulated program of aims which might be modified 
as to details, but in which the democratic principles at stake were 
nailed down, and (as later developed) it provided for subscription 
to those principles and evidence of readiness to press for them as 
a prerequisite on the part of any German units which might par- 
ticipate. 

All this was at great variance with the earlier conference projects 
associated with Stockholm and with the Russian Soviet in 19 17, 
which were to have been much more binding but were un- 
organized. It was, however, as much at variance with the former 
stand-off position of British labor and with the subsequent stand- 
off position of American labor, as it was with the procedure of the 
Brest-Litovsk meetings of 1917-18, engineered by the Bolsheviki. 
These last were marked by the abandonment of military activity 
and were predicated on the announced belief of the Russian extrem- 
ists that the German working classes would and could hold their 
governments up to a course which would safeguard the republic and 
the revolution. The strength and the weakness of the Brest- 
Litovsk meetings was that, as the London Spectator put it, they 
were like the pounding of a mailed fist into a feather-bed. Now, 
the British labor offensive partook of the nature neither of a 
gauntlet nor of a bed-tick — rather, of a crow-bar. 



CHAPTER III 

THE SWING TOWARD THE LEFT IN THE BRITISH TRADES UNION 

CONGRESS 

But we must look deeper than the form of international meet- 
ings, or even the desire of British labor to help keep Russia in the 
war, to understand the "swing toward the left" in mass sentiment, 
or the determined moderate leadership which moulded that senti- 
ment into a constructive social leverage. Some characteristic labor 
debates will help to make this clear, and for this purpose let us turn 
from the political to the industrial field and follow three annual 
meetings [Birmingham, 1916; Blackpool, 191 7; Derby, 191 8] of 
the British Trades Union Congress (over 4,000,000 members), the 
greatest and the most insular of the British labor bodies, which 
before the war had taken little part in foreign affairs. It had been 
content to let the General Federation of Trade Unions (800,000 
members) function as participant in the pre-war international trade 
union body with headquarters in Berlin, and build up close relations 
with the American Federation of Labor, also a participant; though 
the congress itself exchanged fraternal delegates with the American 
Federation. Meanwhile, not only the British Labour Party, but 
the Independent Labour Party and other British socialist organ- 
izations had long had active affiliations with the International Social- 
ist Bureau with headquarters in Brussels. 

Birmingham: 19 16 

At the Birmingham meeting of the British Trades Union Con- 
gress, in September, 191 6, a circular letter was read from Samuel 
Gompers who addressed "all the national labor movements of the 
world," inviting them to cooperate in the holding of an interna- 
tional trade union congress, at the same time and place as the 
meeting of the official peace plenipotentiaries at the close of the 
war. It was reported that no program or theory as to what such 
a congress should do was offered in the circular; the representa- 
tives were to be free to use whatever opportunity came to promote 
the interests of the workers in connection with the terms of settle- 
ment. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress 
recommended that British labor should cooperate, but by a vote of 



THE BRITISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS 19 

1,486,000 votes to 723,000 the Congress itself struck the resolu- 
tion out. 

This was at the close of England's second year of war. 
Gompers' circular was in line with action taken by the American 
Federation of Labor at its San Francisco convention and was dated 
March 23, 19 16, or a year before the United States entered the war. 
The few arguments on the floor of the British Congress in 19 16 in 
support of Gompers' proposal were not very different from those 
which Gompers himself was to encounter, two years hence, when, 
no longer a neutral, and an opponent of any war time meeting with 
German labor, he attended the British Trades Union Congress at 
Derby in 1918. C. G. Ammon of the Fawcett Association (6,400 
members), who had been a fraternal delegate to the San Francisco 
convention, appealed to the Birmingham meeting of 19 16 not to be 
misled by prejudice. He was quoted as follows: 

The intention of the American Federation was that the pro- 
posed international labor congress should be representative of the 
workers of all the belligerent nations, that the workers who were 
suffering in every country should be called together at the end of 
the war to consider ways and means of making such a tragedy 
impossible in the future. They should remember that when the 
fighting was over the German working man, like the British working 
man, would still have his work to do in the world, and would find 
that he and his dependents were suffering even more than those here. 
The German workers were no more to blame for the great catastro- 
phe which had come upon the world than the British workers were 
able to prevent the imposition of Prussian institutions here. (Cheers 
and some booing.) 

But these were lonely voices. Jack Jones of the General Work- 
ers (164,000 members) charged the German socialists with "selling" 
the international labor movement. "Under the plea that they 
were afraid of invasion," he said: 

they decided to invade and on the altar of liberty they sacrificed lib- 
erty. As one who came from Ireland he was no defender of im- 
perialism, but he would rather have the devil he knew than the devil 
he did not know, and he would rather have a slave-driver of his 
own blood than one of another blood. 

To quote other delegates as reported in the London Times: 

T. McKerrell (Miners' Federation) asked whether the socialists 
of Germany who might attend this conference would be the socialists 
whom the Kaiser sent to Belgium after the massacres to persuade 
the Belgian people that they ought to welcome German rule, and if 



20 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

so whether the Belgian workmen who escaped massacre would sit 
in the same room. 

George Roberts, M.P., said the British workers should not sanc- 
tion any negotiations with the German Social Democrats or their 
government until the German democracy had purged themselves of 
Kaiserdom and all for which it stood. Some people thought they 
were inclined to do it; he did not believe it. The German socialists, 
like the German people as a whole, believed in militarism as a 
means of dominating the world. If this proposal were persisted 
in it would mean, for generations to come, the biggest split in the 
British labor movement that they had ever dreamed of. The Ger- 
man appreciated nothing but force and brute power, and nothing else 
would induce him to expiate his crimes. 

— Arguments, all of them apparently, which Gompers took to 
heart so entirely that with the lapse of time, and their positions 
reversed, he employed no others more vehemently in countering 
the later British program which embodied his own proposal as one 
of its chief features. 

At Birmingham, also, Will Thorne, M.P., said he would wel- 
come a congress of labor from Allied or neutral countries, but char- 
acterized as "absurd" the suggestion to have "delegates from 
Germany, Austria, Turkey and Bulgaria at a congress that was to 
advise our plenipotentiaries upon the terms of peace." He believed 
that 99 per cent of the people of England would oppose any gov- 
ernment which attempted to make terms of peace until every 
German was cleared out of Belgium and France. 

Blackpool: 19 17 

Twelve months later, at Blackpool as indicated in the preceding 
chapter, we find Thorne seconding Smillie's resolution, which came 
from the Parliamentary Committee of which both were members, 
that the Trades Union Congress "assist and take part," not only 
in an inter-Allied, but an inter-belligerent conference. Thorne said 
in part: 

There are deep-rooted convictions in the minds of many of the 
members of our unions. Some are taking one side, and some the 
other, and, therefore, it does appear to me that those responsible 
for the respective organizations to-day have a tremendous task in 
front of them to keep the members united during the rest of the 
war. There are little differences of opinion amongst us to-day; but, 
so far as my opinions are concerned, when the war is over, I shall 
be quite prepared, if the other side is willing to meet together again 
upon the one common platform, to fight the common enemy — and 



THE BRITISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS 21 

that is organized capital — right throughout the length and breadth 
of this world. 

Delegates of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union (55,000 mem- 
bers), which at the outset of the war got an internment camp set 
up for German seamen employed on British ships, and looked after 
them, were the very ones who led the fight against the resolution 
at Blackpool. 

Said J. Henson: 

Over 6,000 men of the British mercantile marine have been mur- 
dered by German submarines. You have heard of men, in days 
gone by, being cast away at sea, and the time came when they had 
to cast lots as to which should die so that the others might live. 
Only a short time ago, the steamer Cariba was in the Bay of Biscay, 
when she was torpedoed by a submarine. The lifeboat and the jolly- 
boat were got out, and the submarine sunk the jolly-boat, with the 
result that in the lifeboat twenty-two men had to drift about for 
nine solid days, with only a few biscuits and a small supply of 
water. One by one they died from the cold, for in March we had 
bad weather. The captain and fireman and engineer were dropped 
over the side of the boat, and on the ninth day there were nine 
survivors, who had been frost-bitten from their knees, and had 
their feet off and their legs, when they were at last rescued and 
taken to the hospital. That is the sort of "friendliness" we receive 
from the Germans, towards whom you ask us to adopt a friendly 
attitude in this resolution. If you came into our trade union office — 
Thomas, MacDonald, or any one else — and listened to the stories of 
the men who, after being torpedoed four, five, and six times, have 
willingly gone back to sea to bring food to every man who is sitting 
in this congress, you would not ask us to meet our enemies round a 
friendly table. 

We can never meet the German again, in the future, in the inter- 
national movement. Our men are bred and born internationalists, 
and they have done their best to work to the spirit of their old 
traditions, but the time has come when the cry has gone forth from 
our members — from those who have lost their lives, and the women 
and the children they have left behind — that never again will we 
meet these men in the old friendly way. The 6,000 murdered men 
who lie at the bottom of the sea, with their sightless eyes staring 
at us in our dreams, are a reminder of the foul deeds that have been 
committed by the Germans, and these victims of barbarous brutality 
make mute but effective appeal to us, their friends and survivors, 
to reject with scorn the suggestion that we should meet the country- 
men of those who have thus requited the faithfulness of our com- 
rades to the highest traditions of the sea. The Seamen's Union 
has done a good deal for the international movement, but as a man 
who has eaten their bread, and has lived their life, and will share 
the death they have died, I solemnly declare in this Congress that 



22 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

the seamen of this country will absolutely refuse to take part in 
any movement with these men, and that they will decline to carry 
delegates to any conference with which they are associated. 

This last was a threat which in the course of time the sailors 
carried out. 

"Have you heard the story of the Belgian Prince?" asked J. 
Havelock Wilson, president of the Sailors and Firemen, who at- 
tacked the Parliamentary Committee, significantly enough, also, for 
including the socialist groups in their proposed congress : 

Have you heard the story where they discarded the lifeboats, 
took off the life-belts, and submerged the ship? And yet some of 
you — [here the speaker broke down, amid the sympathetic silence of 
the Congress] — and yet some of you would be content to meet these 
men ! You would take the blood-stained hands of murderers within 
your own ! . . . 

I took every precaution to bring to the notice of the organized 
workmen of Germany what our men have suffered. I was turned 
down. So you can quite understand the attitude of the seamen. 
Yet you would ask the government to withdraw from the position 
they have taken upon this question and to issue passports for this 
conference at Stockholm. That is to say, you are willing to throw 
upon the British seamen the responsibility of refusing to carry 
those who were going to meet our murderers. Well, the seamen 
will not hesitate to accept that responsibility. We will never carry 
these men. 

One policy the seamen will pursue. We have got to teach Ger- 
many a lesson. Germany is a nation gone wrong from top to bot- 
tom. . . . 

The case could not have been put more poignantly. Later on 
this Blackpool Congress of 191 7 passed a resolution roundly con- 
demning the "barbarous practices employed by enemy submarine 
commanders" and calling on the "working class forces" of the 
Central Empires to "use every effort in order to guarantee that 
all methods and means of life-saving should be utilized when mer- 
chant tonnage is sunk." British labor as a whole later called for 
reparation for seamen and passengers who had gone down in ships 
sunk in violation of international law and for rigorous inquiry and 
judgment on the violators. 

But, on the issue lying back of this question of atrocities (cast 
here in terms of fellow workers murdered at sea), when the vote 
was taken at Blackpool, the majority in favor of the resolution 
setting going the procedure for an international meeting was as 
31 to 1. J. Cotter of the Ship Stewards (7,000 members), who, 



THE BRITISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS 23 

after the Lusitania was sunk by a German submarine, had gone 
down to identify the bodies of "my own shipmates who were con- 
cerned in that great tragedy," was one of those who spoke in its 
favor and in reply to Wilson; Ben Tillett of the dockers (47,000 
members) was another. R. Williams of the Amalgamated Laborers 
(6,000 members) voiced the attitude of the radicals: 

I join with Mr. Clynes and Mr. Thomas in saying that no words 
of mine can adequately convey the respect I have for the seamen 
of this country. We are told that it is not possible or desirable 
that the representatives of Great Britain shall confer with, and 
shake hands with, the representatives of the German working classes. 
The case of the seamen is really good on its sober official side, but 
if and when the circumstances required such a step to be taken, 
your shipowners would have no hesitation in using the services of 
the German prisoners of war to-day. 

I have accompanied Wilson and Henson and Cotter to the Ad- 
miralty and the Board of Trade, and time and time again we have 
protested against the damnable iniquity of the British shipowners 
employing Lascars and Chinamen. I have in my office the protests 
of men who have had their ships sunk under them two or three 
times, and they have been told that there is no work for them because 
the shipowners, in their search for more and more profits, have 
replaced them with Chinese and Lascars. I can quote from Mr. 
Wilson's own letters on this subject, which are now lying at my 
office. ... I can see that the whole of Europe is going to be one 
seething mass of discontent among the workers after the war, and 
I want this trade union movement, on its own horny-handed side, 
to bestir itself and take its proper position in the International. . . . 

Many of our politicians and the press will join in acclaiming the 
statements made by President Wilson from time to time, and Presi- 
dent Wilson has said that the world must be made safe for democ- 
racy. Then I say that democracy alone can accomplish the task. 
Are you not smarting under the taunt of the Cecils, who have the 
bluntness to express the mind of the governing class concerning you ? 
The diplomats are striving by underhand overtures to compose a 
peace satisfactory to themselves, and I am assured upon unquestion- 
able authority that this war is no different from other wars. These 
men will carry on their secret machinations. From the disclosures 
in the newspapers this morning you will find that intrigue was going 
on in 1901, 1904 and 1905 between the Hohenzollerns and others 
against this country. It is time that we put an end to this damnable 
witches' cauldron. Kings have gone already, and we are told that 
the Kaiser must go. Then I say, praise God when there will be 
a notice "to let" outside Buckingham Palace ! 

J. Bromley, secretary of the Locomotive Firemen & Engineers 
(34,000 members), followed with this: 



24 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

It is all right, Mr. Chairman and fellow delegates, to suggest 
that we cannot shake hands with "the bloody Germans," not yet; but 
if we fail in this great movement to recognize the one essential 
factor that it is not the working class of this country or of Germany, 
or any other country, who have caused this war, or are now making 
it continue, we shall never get a -right perception of the problem 
that faces us, or find a solution of it. I think, if I may say so, that 
it is surprising to many of us that this great movement of ours, and 
even our supposedly intelligent leaders, are losing sight of that 
fact. We are acting upon the same principle that operates in the 
case of a couple of dogs who are thrown in the pen to fight each 
other, or when cocks are put into the cockpit. In our blind, unrea- 
soning passion, we are fighting each other at the behest of other 
people. We appear to be as ignorant of the real issue as the dogs 
in the pen or the cocks in the cockpit. We have got to turn upon 
the people outside who are setting us at each other's throats. When 
we do that, we shall say, not in the ambiguous language of this 
report from the Parliamentary Committee, but straightforwardly as 
Britishers, that if we do not now meet these Germans, by the time 
we do wake up to it, it will be too late for any useful purpose. That 
is the position. 

But at Blackpool the preponderance of argument on inter- 
allied and inter-belligerent meetings had swung to the affirmative 
side; it was no longer espoused by lone spokesmen, and it was the 
big moderate leaders who this year met the issue as raised by the 
seamen. 

Said J. H. Thomas, secretary of the National Union of Rail- 
waymen (341,000 members), who had come to America the spring 
before as a member of the British Mission to give American labor 
and employers the benefit of English experience in girding for war: 

I am first going to submit that there is no delegate in this hall 
who could listen unmoved to the case of the Seamen; and nobody 
knows better than Wilson and Henson that there are many of us 
who disagree profoundly with their particular view who are not 
wanting in their admiration for the magnificent heroism of the 
seamen of these islands. But, after all, this is a congress repre- 
sentative of labor; and if it were true that the war could be settled 
and peace could be declared by English and Germans not meeting — 
as Mr. Wilson says — then there would be indeed great force in his 
argument. But he knows perfectly well that if the war were to go 
on for another twenty years, there must come a time when a meet- 
ing of some kind will have to take place. ... In the second place, 
there is no difference of opinion in our movement with respect to 
the proposition that when peace is discussed the views of labor 
should be effective. We all know that all the horrors of this war — 
that the germs of this war — are to be found in previous patched-up 



THE BRITISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS 25 

peaces. Every war has been the result of an inconclusive peace, 
and a peace in which the common people of the world were never 
consulted. Therefore, we say to this congress that with all the sac- 
rifices which labor has made, with the magnificent response in life 
and treasure that they are giving daily, are we not justified in 
assuming that the great labor movement is anxious that when peace 
has to be discussed, labor's voice must be heard; and it must be the 
people's peace, and made by the people. . . . 

Said J. R. Clynes, M.P., of the General Workers (164,000 mem- 
bers), who twelve months later was to become food controller of 
the British Isles: 

We were all deeply moved by the eloquence and emotion of the 
speeches of the two men who represent the Sailors' and Firemen's 
Union in the opposition to this resolution; and we feel that they 
spoke as trade union leaders whose members have suffered in a 
special degree from the murderous methods of modern German war- 
fare. We can assure Mr. Wilson and his union that they have the 
deepest sympathy of the trades union movement; but we also want 
him to ask his members to regard the war situation now as something 
even greater than the loss which his union has suffered, and higher 
than the feeling of indignation which naturally now moves his col- 
leagues and himself. . . . 

. . . Until we find an immense change in German opinion from 
the official spokesmen, a conference with the German people would 
be folly. If it took place, you can well imagine what would happen. 
I can trace my attendance to the first international conference back 
to the days of my youth, when, some 20 years ago, I attended Zurich ; 
and, in the corner of the room, I saw men with knives in their pos- 
session. I was present at the recent conference of Allies in London, 
and again I saw a great difference of opinion between us. What is 
the use of compelling these men to meet together ? You only compel 
them to make an exhibition before the labor and socialist forces of 
the world. You compel them to enter the conference in the form 
of an inglorious row that can do no good to the labor movements 
or to the common interests of us all. . . . 

I believe the Parliamentary Committee is now putting forward a 
proposal which is not merely based upon a mature discussion of 
opposing points of view but also, and more particularly, upon the 
experience of the past few weeks. They have seen that it is no 
use having an artificial and forced conference. . . . 

Derby: 1918 

Thomas, Clynes, Henderson — the names will recur again in suc- 
ceeding chapters when we find them as the organizers of the great 
moderate central strength of the British Labour Party in its war 



26 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

and peace offensive, just as they occurred again at the meeting of 
the British Trades Union Congress at Derby, in September, 191 8, 
when they met and routed a determined effort to undermine that 
offensive by antagonistic forces in British public life — forces which 
sought to split the Trades Union Congress on the international 
issue through such spokesmen for the policy of non-intercourse as 
Gompers of America and Hughes of Australia, and which sought to 
split the political labor movement by starting a purely trade union 
party (with the socialist elements left out) in opposition to the 
British Labour Party. At Derby 1 we find Havelock Wilson holding 
a great mass meeting for the sailors and their wrongs, designed to 
play into both moves, but when it came to the Congress itself, we 
find it standing again shoulder to shoulder with the British Labour 
Party; find Thomas and Thorne mover and seconder of a resolu- 
tion which reaffirmed the policies set going at Blackpool the year 
before. 

But Derby takes the chronicle beyond the period dealt with 
in this chapter — up to the close of 191 7 — which, between Birming- 
ham and Blackpool, saw the shift in labor sentiment from right to 
left in the great British Trades Union Congress. 

1 See Chapter XVII. 



CHAPTER IV 

BRITISH LABOR UNITED ON WAR AIMS 

Late in the session at Blackpool, Henderson, speaking as fra- 
ternal delegate from the Labour Party, personified the issues of 
foreign policy before the Trades Union Congress; and the official 
report records that he was welcomed there (September, 191 7), less 
than a month after his enforced retirement from the War Cabinet, 
"with a warmth of demonstration almost without precedent in the 
history of those gatherings. 1 ' 

He said in part: 

The Labour Party welcome most enthusiastically the recom- 
mendations set out in the resolution relating to the development of 
the work of the Parliamentary Committee. The possibility of the 
mother of congresses taking her proper place in the ever-increas- 
ingly important work in the international field of politics is one that 
must be viewed with keen satisfaction by all true friends of the 
labor movement. If I may be permitted to say so, I join with the 
delegate who spoke earlier in the week, and say emphatically that 
it has been to the impoverishment of international politics that 
this congress has not taken a larger share in the work in days 
gone by. . . . 

I believe, sir, that, so far as the future is concerned, a properly 
organized and thoroughly representative working-class international 
movement will not only make military wars, but economic wars, 
well-nigh an impossibility. And who would dispute the essential 
need of such a force, especially when we remember the bitter expe- 
rience through which we have gone in the past three years? If we 
had such a force, it would be the finest expression of a League of 
Nations that could be imagined, because it would be a League of 
the Common Peoples throughout the whole civilized world. I do 
not mind confessing — thpugh possibly some advantage will be taken 
of the confession — that the indispensable necessity to this desirable 
state of affairs is the destruction, the complete destruction, of 
absolute government, with its Kaisers and its Czars, to be replaced 
by a free democracy. Is it too much to say that this great world 
conflict, which has entailed such tremendous sacrifices in blood, 
treasure, and effort, could only be finally successful — and I empha- 
size that word "finally," for I am afraid that some people mistake 
the military victory for the final and complete success — could only 
be finally successful when autocratic government has been com- 

27 



28 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

pletely and forever destroyed? May I say — though the position may 
not commend itself to all of you — that this is the great reason why 
I would rather consult with the German minority before peace than 
I would with the representatives of a discredited autocratic govern- 
ment when a military victory has been secured? 

I do not challenge one word of the magnificent speech made by 
the leader of the American delegation this morning in what he said 
in regard to some of the German socialists; 1 but I think we should 
be fair to our comrades, and we ought to be especially fair to a 
minority, and more particularly to a minority that has had to labor, 
because of its conscience, under the peculiar difficulties which the 
German socialist minority has had to contend with — and has nobly 
contended — during the past three years. Take the position of Lieb- 
knecht — Liebknecht, Bernstein, Haase, and others of the small group 
that stood together in spite of militarism of their own nation. They 
have stood aloof from their own government, and have done what 
little they could to thwart the base designs of their government. 
Therefore, much as we may deplore the attitude of the majority, 
let us give honor where honor is due. . . . 

The promoters of the Stockholm conference in Great Britain 
were prepared to leave the settlement of the peace conditions to the 
governments, who alone are responsible to the entire nation; but we 
of all classes have suffered so much — and which amongst us at these 
tables has not got lying beneath the sod a son or some one else who 
was near and dear to us? — we belong to the class which has given 
the most and suffered most, and we shall not allow this matter to 
rest in the hands of diplomatists, secret plenipotentiaries, or polir 
ticians of the official stamp, unless they are prepared to have some 
regard for the opinion of the common people. 

Delegates wielding in all 3,400,000 votes attended the special 
conference at Central Hall, Westminster, December 23, 191 7, at 

1 Two fraternal delegates of the American Federation spoke. James 
Lord of the United Mine Workers of America, and John Golden, of the 
Textile Workers, both of the old school of labor leadership in the States. 
A paragraph from the latter's address will put the point of their remarks : 

"I question whether there is any country in the whole wide world 
where the voice of labor would not have been raised in protest if the 
government participated in the cruelties which the German government 
have participated in. _ And there is only one of two things. The German 
labor movement _ is either in sympathy with those cruelties, or they are 
moral cowards in not expressing their disapproval. There must be a 
reckoning; and we believe, in our American way, that there is only one 
thing to do, and that is to defeat the German first and then try to talk 
to him afterwards." 

A different message was brought by David Rees in behalf of the 
Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, who complimented the gathering 
for being "big enough to accept the truce of the Parliamentary Com- 
mittee," and expressed himself as favoring an international conference 
"as speedily as possible.'' 



BRITISH LABOR UNITED ON WAR AIMS 29 

which as a result of the initiation at Blackpool, the war aims 
memorandum framed jointly by the Parliamentary Committee of 
the Trades Union Congress and the Executive Committee of the 
Labour Party was submitted. 1 There was a letter from the Premier, 
assuring the delegates that: 

A statement in regard to the war aims of the Allies can, of course, 
only be made in agreement with the other nations who are fighting 
in alliance together in the war. 

The question of issuing a fresh joint declaration on this subject 
is one which is constantly kept in view by the Allied governments, 
but it is not one about which it is possible for the British govern- 
ment to speak by itself. We had looked forward to an interchange 
of views on this subject with the delegates appointed by the Russian 
government to attend the conference held in Paris last month, but 
to our regret the absence of any representatives of Russia at that 
conference made any such consultation impossible. . . . 

To my mind, the ideals for which we are fighting to-day are pre- 
cisely the same as those for which the British Empire entered the 
war. 

We accepted the challenge thrown down by Prussia in order to 
free the world once and for all from the intolerable menace of a 
militaristic civilization, and to make possible a lasting peace by 
restoring the liberty of the oppressed nationalities, and by enforcing 
respect of those laws and treaties which are the protection of all 
nations, whether great or small. 

Within a few days following this conference, Lloyd George had 
reversed himself in the matter of a distinctly British formulation 
of aims; at a meeting with labor he came across, without waiting for 
the Allies, in a document far more explicit than any hitherto put 
out. But up to the period of the armistice, ten months later, no 
joint statement was forthcoming. Henderson countered at the time, 
in moving the adoption of the memorandum, by saying (the quota- 
tions are in the indirect wording of the news report of the London 
Times) : 

Faith in brute force as an ideal instrument for attaining national 
ambitions, whether right or wrong, must be destroyed. In order 
to make the world safe for democracy the peace settlement must 
contain all the conditions and safeguards essential to the future life 
and national development of free peoples, be they large or small. 
Secret diplomacy, compulsory military service, profit from the manu- 
facture of the instruments of destruction, should be rendered unnec- 
essary in a society of free nations. This is the great spiritual 
change which working-class organizations are especially concerned 

Appendix I. 



30 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

to secure by any peace settlement. The bond of a nation must be 
given to the settlement by the people, for that is the only way in 
which the civilization of the future can be provided with the safe- 
guards and guarantees that will be adequate and effective. . . . 

May I remind the conference that in July last, on my return 
from Russia, I said that until there had been a definite restatement 
of war aims and some prospect of an international conference it 
was doubtful whether the Russian army and the majority of the 
moderate socialists, on whom so much depended, would give of their 
best for the successful prosecution of the war? Can it be doubted 
that the ignoring of the warning thus given contributed to the pres- 
ent awful Russian disaster? 

Take the question of the League of Nations. President Wilson 
and the American people are very much interested in this proposal; 
in fact it would be no exaggeration to say that America is fighting 
for little if anything else. Yet this is the very moment chosen by 
Sir Edward Carson (some hissing) and a section of the press to 
treat that proposal with scorn and contempt. 

And of the general situation: 

It is scarcely necessary to remind this conference that the war 
is running far into the fourth year. Each day makes its further 
demands of sacrifice, destruction and death. The impoverishment 
of the world in the unprecedented losses of life, property and mate- 
rial continues. The engines of destruction are multiplied and science 
is applied for the purposes of death and not for promoting the cre- 
ative and constructive functions of life. The world is stunned and 
appalled by these grievous losses, and a crushed and bleeding human- 
ity desires to know if the continuance of this tragedy is essential 
to a just and lasting peace. We all of us recognize that the evil 
effects of Germany's policy of aggressive militarism and world domi- 
nation must be destroyed, that Germany's autocracy must give place 
to a German democracy, that militarism not only in Germany, but 
universally (loud cheers) must be forever discredited, and that 
adequate provision must be made to maintain peace among the free 
democracies of the world by the establishment of a complete league 
of democratic nations. We all recognize that all dishonorable and 
unjust ambitions or world domination, whether they be military, 
political, or commercial, must be renounced by every nation. 

There was an effort from the extreme right, by Havelock Wil- 
son of the Sailors and Firemen (55,000 members) to have the 
memorandum rejected. Wilson recounted again the deliberate 
murders at sea; denounced the procedure as a covert effort to drive 
those "men out of the government who were representing labor, to 
suit their own selfish purposes and policy;" and said that his answer 
to the question, "What are our war aims?" was "Get on with the 



BRITISH LABOR UNITED ON WAR AIMS 31 

war." And there was an effort from the extreme left, by E. C. 
Fairchild of the British Socialist Party, to refer back a passage 
reaffirming the resolve to fight until victory was achieved, as, he said, 
it had "become abundantly clear that victory in the old military 
sense could never be secured by the continuance of the war." 
Wilson was voted down by a show of hands, 25 to 1, and Fairchild 
without counting. An effort was made by Stephen Walsh, M.P., 
on behalf of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation, to 
postpone action for a month on the ground that many branches 
had not had opportunity to consider the memorandum. This was 
disputed by Robert Smillie, president of the National Federation 
of Miners, and defeated. 

The new majority showed their strength in the vote — 2,132,000 
to 1,164,000; and it will serve to quote two of their spokesmen. 
J. Hill (Boilermakers, 76,000 members), in seconding Henderson's 
motion, in behalf of the Parliamentary Committee of which he 
was vice-chairman, contrasted labor's proposals with the plans of 
the "Paris economic conference for bottling up certain nations by 
tariffs," and concluded: 

The memorandum in your hands points a peaceful and consti- 
tutional path to sanity, justice, and democracy. This conference is 
the first step towards the reconciliation of the workers of all lands. 

I have been in as many industrial wars as most men of my age. 
I have had employers to deal with who were to me as brutal as 
Kaiser Bill (Cheers). But at no stage in these fights have I at 
any time refused to negotiate, to meet my enemies, and to settle, if 
a settlement were possible. I advocate the same policy in interna- 
tional affairs. I supported voluntary recruiting. My members (the 
Boilermakers) in far too large numbers volunteered. My own four 
sons all left work of national importance to take their place in the 
fighting line. I have given thousands of voluntary hours to our 
government to help in the organization of war work. But I have 
never forgotten that there is a more excellent way than war for the 
settlement of disputes, and I am honored to share in presenting 
this memorandum, believing that it is the first step in offering a 
reasoned solution of this world-tragedy. 

Said J. H. Thomas (National Railwaymen, 341,000 members) : 

If, as they said, Germany set out for world domination — as he 
believed she did — and if she believed in the power of militarism, 
would the acceptance of that document be a triumph for Germany? 
If they were in a position to say through the working classes of all 
countries, "Here is a fair, just and honorable peace," and if Ger- 
many was in the position to accept it, they would have achieved their 



32 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

object. But, if she was not, then they must fight on to secure it, 
because they believed that it was right. . . . 

They were not hoisting the white flag. They were not neglecting 
their duty and their responsibility to those whom they represented ; 
but they were mindful that their country, and all the countries, were 
being bled white. (Hear, hear.) They were not out to crush 
German militarism and substitute English militarism in its place. 
(Hear, hear.) They were out to crush militarism in all forms, in 
all countries, because when they had crushed militarism they had 
crushed the real germ that caused all wars. They could only do that 
by declaring clearly and definitely that just as our hands were clean 
in 1914, they were clean to-day, and that our aims were equally pure. 
But they would not be if they were going to have Paris resolutions, 
if they were going to have an economic war to provide the germs 
for future war. It was only by a league of nations, standing four- 
square, that they could defeat militarism in all forms; and then their 
message would be, not to our own people, not to the Allied people, 
but to the workers of the world — "United to save the world for the 
future of the people." 



CHAPTER V 

THE I. L. P. AND THE LEFT 

Just as we turned from the substantial Trades Union Congress 
to the more fluid Labour Party to gauge the currents affecting Brit- 
ish labor, so to get closer to the sources of the new working class 
feeling we must, in sequence, turn to the well springs of the Inde- 
pendent Labour Party, which was founded in 1893 by Keir Hardie. 

Radical, fearless, small in numbers — 35,000 before the war; 
50,000 at its close — these opportunists had been as rabidly attacked 
in the past by the more rigid socialists for their want of class bit- 
terness as they were attacked by the forces of privilege for their 
arraignment of the existing order. They and like minded radicals 
had been forerunners in setting issues, which later became the 
watch words of the whole labor movement, through the pages of 
such papers (barred from oversea's mails during war time) as the 
I. L. P.'s Labour Leader, George Lansbury's x Herald, the Glasgow 
Forward and the Merthyr Pioneer. The I. L. P. had been fore- 
runners in seeing and seizing upon the political power of labor 
and had their group in Parliament long before the Labour Party 
was organized by a committee of the Trades Union Congress. They 
were forerunners in that linking of workers "by hand or by brain" 
which has this last year been the basis for expansion of the British 
Labour Party, and their mixed membership has been a leaven in 
the larger body. Before the war, they were forerunners in recog- 
nizing labor's interests in foreign relations and had affiliations in 
the International Socialist Bureau, independent of the affiliation of 
the Labour Party. And, during the war, they had been forerunners 
for peace, pressing for some of the elements in the united war- 
aims program at a time when the rank and file of labor was wholly 
unaroused to them. They had a hand in a radical conference at 
Leeds in June, 191 7, which hailed the Russian revolution and sub- 

1 George Lansbury, for example, years ago staked his seat in the Com- 
mons on the suffrage issue and lost; only to run again (and lose again) 
in the December elections (1918), at which, with the passage of time, 
thousands of English women voted under a franchise given them by the 
very elements which years before sent him > as he phrased it, "out into the 
wilderness." 

33 



34 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

scribed to the soviet formula of "peace without annexations or in- 
demnities, based on the rights of nations to decide their own affairs." 
This conference advocated the establishment of Workmen's and Sol- 
diers' Councils on the Russian model and its delegation to Russia 
in the early days of the Revolution was stalled by the action of the 
government and the sailors' union. 

At London on August 10, 191 7, when the Labour Party was 
at length swinging over to an amended Stockholm conference, Philip 
Snowden, M.P., chairman of the I. L. P., expressed its impatient 
temper to take part on its own and to go to lengths unendorsed by 
the new majority. He said: 

The minority representatives who go to Stockholm . . . will not 
be tongue-tied by the views of any majority. We shall go there 
to say that this slaughter has gone on quite long enough. We shall 
go there to say that it was not the peoples but the governments that 
made the war. We shall go there to say that in the last three years 
governments have been unable to settle this war, and finally, we 
shall go to say that those whose incapacity has been made so mani- 
fest should no longer have the power to gamble with the lives of 
the people, that the time has come when the democracies of all the 
nations shall rise and say that this is not a question for a nation, 
it is not a question for allies, it is a question for the people, and 
the people now shall take the settlement of this question into their 
own hands. 

In its earlier activities as to foreign policy, the Independent 
Labour Party had thus operated outside the great labor formations 
which were not yet ready, and it was now prepared to go entirely 
beyond the new majority in the positions it espoused. But it had 
steadily maintained its regularity in domestic affairs as a constit- 
uent member of the Labour Party. It had sought to get its own 
people nominated in the preliminary canvasses, but had supported 
the regular nominees when chosen. The opposite course was selected 
by the British Workers' League, one of the new off-shoot organiza- 
tions of war time, headed by Victor Fisher, a member of the old 
Social Democratic Party, ranging itself at every point on the 
extreme "right," and apparently in close affiliation with the govern- 
ment labor group. The League not only attacked the Labour 
Party after its war aims pronouncements in December, 19 17, but 
announced that it would nominate candidates for Parliament in 
opposition in some constituencies. When this matter was brought 
to the attention of three well-known labor leaders who had lent 
their names to the league, they resigned, and at the Nottingham 
convention (January, 19 18) it was the general sentiment that all 



THE I. L. P. AND THE LEFT 35 

members of the Labour Party should get out of the league or out of 
the party. They could not serve both. Robert Smillie called the 
British Workers' League on the floor of the convention at Notting- 
ham a "black-leg organization," and in doing so he brought down 
the house. 

We secured testimony of what the shift in sentiment in the 
rank and file meant, in terms of the workers of one great industry, 
and as one of the outspoken leaders of the Left saw it, in a state- 
ment by Robert Smillie, president of the Lanarkshire Miners' 
Union (Scotland), president of the Miners' Federation of Great 
Britain (800,000 members), and chairman of the Triple Alliance of 
Railway Men, Transport Workers and Miners. His position had 
been much more consistent than that of Henderson, Thomas and 
others, with whom he made common cause in the new "labor offen- 
sive"; but was much more extreme. With the "swing toward the 
left," it had to be reckoned with more and more in estimating the 
trend of British working class opinion. 

Said Robert Smillie at Nottingham in January, 19 18, at the turn 
of the year: 

It might be said that during the first two years of this war 
the mine workers of the country were probably the strongest in their 
devotion to the government in its policies and in their enthusiasm 
for the war. They always opposed and voted against conscription, 
but accepted it with other measures as they came along. But as 
mining was made an exempted industry, it did not fall on them hard. 

Now, I feel sure, not only could it be said that their enthusiasm 
has been seriously dampened, but to a great extent it has gone out 
altogether. . . . 

I think the feeling is now with the majority of the workers of the 
country that a satisfactory and lasting peace could be secured by 
negotiation between the Allies and the central powers. The feeling 
is strongly held by the majority that a peace could have been secured 
by negotiation twelve months ago, had it not been for the imperial- 
istic aims of the ruling and government classes in the Allied countries 
and, of course, in Germany and Austria. 

I am speaking now for what I believe to be the majority and, 
more important, the more active and rebellious section. Their view 
of a settlement is that this war will ultimately be settled by negotia- 
tion and not by a military victory on either hand — and that hunger 
in the belligerent nations and the lack of supply of men will be the 
deciding factors in bringing this about. If this view is a correct 
one, then it follows that it must be also correct that negotiations 
ought to take place now rather than twelve months hence, when 
hundreds of thousands of men of all the nations whose lives might 
be saved, will have been wiped out. 

This mining county of Nottingham may be taken as one of the 



36 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

most backward in Great Britain. From the advanced labor and 
political points of view, it has always been considered reactionary 
and the home of liberalism and liberal-laborism, as opposed to inde- 
pendence. It is now showing a wonderful movement of a revolu- 
tionary character. My own action as president of the Miners' 
Federation of Great Britain, in holding as I do strong views in 
opposition to the unnecessary continuance of the war, was the sub- 
ject of severe criticism at branch meetings of the miners in Notting- 
hamshire earlier in the war. On invitation of the Miners' Associa- 
tion I have addressed three mass meetings this past week. At the 
one held last night, there were in attendance considerably over two 
thousand men and women. There were some railway workers pres- 
ent, but the men were chiefly miners. At these meetings every refer- 
ence to an early settlement of the war by negotiation, every reference 
to the building up of the International at the earliest possible moment 
after the war, every statement that liberalism and conservatism, the 
old political parties, should be thrown aside and all classes of the 
democracy unite together in the building up of a people's party, 
perform their own government and carry on the affairs of the na- 
tion, in the interest of the democracy — was cheered to the echo. 

I should like to add that from very wide experience in public 
meetings I am simply amazed at the enthusiasm shown. I feel cer- 
tain that eighteen months ago I should not have been allowed to 
deliver those speeches here. I find that this change in temper, gen- 
erally speaking, applies to every district in which I have been dur- 
ing the past few months. Though it is well known everywhere what 
my views are, and that I have been and am in direct opposition 
to the vast majority of the national trade union leaders of the 
country, I am receiving hundreds of letters from branch trade 
unions and local trade and labor councils to address meetings. 

The rank and file of the workers are changing their minds far 
more rapidly upon the question of the necessity for pushing in the 
direction of an early peace than are the old leaders. I am con- 
vinced that the pressure from the rank and file will within a very 
short time force a change, if not in the opinions at least in the ex- 
pressions of many of the leaders of the trade union movement. 

There will not be this change in Scotland or Wales, because in 
those two countries the men have been anxious for peace negotia- 
tions for a considerable time. The same thing may be said of 
Northumberland. But the change which I have described as taking 
place in Nottingham is going forward in Durham, Yorkshire, Staf- 
fordshire and Derbyshire. 

I have watched the change in my own county (Lanarkshire) and 
there it is very marked. Two years ago, though I am a trusted and 
favorite servant of the men, and they would not like to do anything 
that would seem to injure or offend me, I remember that in our 
conferences the vast majority of the delegates were fight-to-the- 
finish and knock-out-blow men. I have watched the change care- 
fully, and I venture to say that the question of the earliest possible 



THE I. L. P. AND THE LEFT 37 

peace by negotiation, without annexation or indemnity, would be 
carried in Lanarkshire almost to a man. There is certainly a strong 
feeling in the districts of the county and in the conferences where 
the branch delegates meet against any more men being taken from 
the mines. The feeling is that peace could be secured if the British 
government were anxious to bring about an early settlement of the 
war. 

The first cause of this change has been a natural one. We have 
been three and a half years in the most terrible war ever seem 
Every village has its widows and orphans, — and mothers who have 
lost their sons. There is undoubtedly a war weariness. 

Then the greed of the capitalist class and the profiteers has been 
another fruitful cause for bringing the people to look for peace- 
And the hideous mistakes which have undoubtedly been made, the 
blunders by some of our higher commands which have meant the 
useless slaughter of so many of the rank and file — Gallipoli, Mesopo- 
tamia and the latest at Cambrai — have added to the causes. These 
have all tended to make people tired of the thing; the food shortage, 
women and children standing in queues have added to it. 

But probably the chief cause of the change which has taken place 
in the minds of our people has been that they have come to find out 
through recent revelations in Russia that to a very great extent we 
were misled at the outbreak of the war, that we have not been in 
it solely because Belgium was invaded, but that there are many other 
factors. Our capitalist classes and great armament firms and the 
jingo imperialists with their greed for new lands to exploit and 
develop — a greed common to Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy, France 
and ourselves — they were all in it — were desirous of laying their 
hands on the possessions of other more primitive peoples. When you 
recall how Russia and ourselves divided Persia, how Germany wished 
for Bagdad and we sought to prevent it — out, all of us, for mineral 
resources and oil — those were the real causes. And there is now an 
extraordinary number of our workpeople that are reading those facts 
and spreading them among their fellows. Our people, in growing 
numbers, have come to the conclusion that so far as the working 
people of Germany are concerned they are pretty much the same as 
ourselves, and there is no real cause for war between us. I must 
admit that to me it has been rather amazing that all the efforts of 
the jingo imperialistic press to get up a bitter hatred against the 
German and Austrian people amongst the workers of this country 
have utterly failed. There is a hatred of the Junker and military 
class of Germany, and there is a growing bitterness against the same 
class in our own country. Our people to a very great extent believed 
that the very strength of the German military machine was proof 
that she was preparing for years for an attack on her near neigh- 
bors. But now, from the information that has leaked out, our people 
are realizing that Germany's great preparations may have been 
caused by her fear that combinations and preparations outside her 
own borders made it inevitable that she should prepare for a com- 



38 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

bined attack. The difficulty has been that up to the present time 
the governments of the opposing nations have managed to make their 
own peoples believe that they are fighting a defensive war and not 
one of aggression. That is the reason why working-class opinion 
has not been more strongly expressed. If we can prove to the Ger- 
man people that the democracy of this country is not out to smash 
Germany as a nation and cut off Germany from free commerce with 
the rest of the world — if we can prove that we are out to rebuild the 
world nationally and internationally on lines of brotherhood and 
lasting peace — if we can prove to them that our ultimate aims are in 
keeping with the proposals of the best of the Russian revolutionists, 
for the final establishment of the cooperative commonwealth, and 
the rights of the people of all the nations to govern themselves in 
their own way, I have great hope of a strong and hearty response 
from the German people. If they did not respond, I at least should 
be sadly disappointed and should, I think, have to change absolutely 
my views of them. 

Once we get our allies to accept labor's war aims (or peace aims, 
as I prefer to call them) we must manage to put them before the 
representatives of the German and Austrian democracy. If we then 
get an authoritative statement, representative of the views of the 
German socialists and trade unionists, that they are not prepared 
to enter into negotiations, but are prepared to stand behind their 
government and military machine until the Allies are conquered and 
military victory secured for Germany, then I feel sure there would 
be a strong and almost a united movement amongst the people of 
this country, that we must fight on and use all the powers we possess 
in what would then be a defensive war against unreasonable and 
outrageous opponents. 

Smillie's interpretation of the swing to the left, as he saw it in 
the industrial field, was matched by Ramsay MacDonald's in the 
political field. In an interview at Nottingham (January, 1918), 
MacDonald said: 

The first thing is for the democracies to recognise that the war 
is a political event, that its causes cannot be removed by militarism 
in any shape or form — that a peace upon victory may only accentuate 
the differences and jealousies and the sensitiveness from which the 
war sprang. Therefore, it is the duty of the democracies to ask each 
other directly, what it is that went wrong with Europe before 1914. 
What have the democracies to offer to solve that problem? When 
they approach the war in that way, several things are quite evident. 
The first thing is that the governments apart from the peoples can't 
settle anything. . . . 

After three years, the Labour Party has begun to see that that is 
the situation. At its two first annual conferences after the war, it 
decided by a huge majority, against the Independent Labour Party's 
advice, to take its share in the government. It then believed that to 



THE I. L. P. AND THE LEFT 39 

support the government was to support the nation. It has now come 
to see that these two things are not the same, and at Nottingham it 
declined to pass a resolution in favor of its members remaining in 
the government, 1 but decided when the question was raised to make 
no pronouncement on the subject. The explanation is that it is 
developing a policy of its own, and it has made a first attempt to 
embody it in its war aims memorandum. . . . 

When the Russian Revolution broke out, the reactionary mind 
of the Cabinet stood revealed in the half-hearted declaration made 
by Mr. Bonar Law, in the House of Commons, when he was forced 
to welcome the new government. Just so, it had been shown a few 
weeks before the revolution by the selection of Lord Milner to go to 
Petrograd on a special mission, when his entire lack of understanding 
of the popular movement that then had almost come to a head was 
shown by his support of Czardom. 

To relieve the situation, thus destroyed, the government, without 
consulting British labor, selected a deputation to go to the Soviets. 
Professedly, it was a deputation of British labor, and, though the 
two labor leaders, O'Grady and Thorne, held positions in trade union- 
ism, their qualifications for this mission were that they were blindly 
pro-government and made speeches on the most approved jingo 
lines. This deputation alienated the Soviets and left matters still 
worse. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Henderson, the labor member of the War Cab- 
inet, was also sent out and after a bad start began to take in the 
situation; but this only brought him into conflict with his cabinet 
colleagues at home, and shortly after his return he was forced to 
resign. 

I know, as a matter of fact, that when Kerensky became the head 
of the Russian government he looked upon Mr. Lloyd George as his 
greatest friend, and I know, also, as a matter of fact, that as the 
months went by this faith evaporated. The great shock came with 
Stockholm. Kerensky never could understand why a democratic 
government could refuse to allow leaders of public opinion known to 
be honest and responsible to confer together. But when not only 
passports were refused to the representatives of British labor (to 
French and American, as well), but when Kerensky's known views 
in favor of Stockholm were contorted until they appeared to be 
antagonistic to the conference, Kerensky felt himself deserted. This 
series of events explains how confidence went by the board. 

What I have said about the working class movement generally, I 
can say with still more force regarding my own constituency. Of 
course, when war broke the floodgates of anger and misrepresenta- 
tion were opened on every one who took my position — had there 
been an election I should have lost my seat. I had three meetings 
broken up. In every case it was by a handful of organized people 
or by soldiers sent down by the Canadian pay-office in London. In 

1 It declined also to pass one calling them out, as likely to interfere 
with the prosecution of the war. (See page 45.) 



40 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

one or two other instances when attempts were made to break up a 
meeting, the interruptors were ejected and government pro-war 
meetings broken up in return. I have had votes of confidence in me 
passed by every labor political organization in the constituency. 
Last Sunday, in Leicester, 6,000 people tried to come into a hall 
that held 2,000. This can be tested in another way: when the war 
broke out the membership of the Leicester Independent Labour Party 
was 650; now it has 2,200. 

At the outset of the war, Ramsay MacDonald, then leader of 
the parliamentary labor group, staked his career on opposing Brit- 
ain's entry into the war, attacking Grey's handling of foreign 
policy. John Burns, liberal-labor, like John Morley, an uncom- 
promising liberal, dropped out of the government and of public 
life, on the same issue, and it looked as if MacDonald would expe- 
rience the same fate. He was the object of unstinted and personal 
abuse. Henderson and other pro-war labor leaders came to the 
front, entered the government, stood for conscription and the other 
war policies, and helped Lloyd George in back-firing the revolu- 
tionary outburst in the congeries of ship-building and engineering 
works on the Clyde. 

Throughout the earlier war years, MacDonald, because of his 
immense personal popularity, had been retained as treasurer of the 
Labour Party. He was renominated at Nottingham by nineteen 
labor unions, national and local, nine labor councils, and twenty- 
six local labor parties, committees and leagues, with no competing 
nominations whatever. But for more than the first half of the 
war his stand on the war issues, along with that of Philip Snowden, 
W. C. Anderson, F. W. Jowett and others, made these Independent 
Labour Party leaders seemingly almost as hopeless a minority in 
the Labour Party itself as they were in Parliament. MacDonald, 
Snowden and Lansbury are always sure of a demonstrative wel- 
come from a labor audience. This is because they have carried on 
a lonely fight, and the Briton loves a game fighter, and because 
they have suffered in the cause of labor. But their more extreme 
views were not the views of the central majority group. Clynes, 
Thomas and Henderson won, when it came to votes and policy. 
The heart of labor was moved to these minority leaders of the left, 
while the head of labor refused to be convinced by the whole of 
their peace policy. 

At the parting of the ways in August, 19 17, the government 
labor faction led by Barnes and Roberts on the extreme right, 
and the extreme left of the I. L. P. led by Snowden, broke with 
the clear majority. But the power of party regularity, stronger even 
in labor politics than out, held them all in line, and the great center 



THE I. L. P. AND THE LEFT 41 

massed behind the new tactics. Picture the line-up in American 
football. The backs shifted their tactics from the right end to 
between tackle and guard on the left. Thus by the close of 191 7, 
the radicals gave fire and urgency to the new formation. The 
more conservative leaders still stood to the positions taken for 
three years, but many of them put their weight into the interna- 
tional program which the rank and file had laid hold of with a 
fervor which can only be compared with the feel of a labor group 
in the midst of a great strike. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE NOTTINGHAM MEETING 

Quickened by these developments, the British Labour Party 
went into annual session at Nottingham on January 23, 19 18. 

In a way, the Nottingham meeting originated nothing, brought 
nothing to a head. It merely affirmed the war aims which the two 
great British labor formations had agreed to in December, and 
which were to receive the sanction of Allied labor and socialist 
groups at the London conference in February [page 67]. Its plans 
for party reorganization, which had engrossed much of the time of 
the executive in recent months in anticipation of a general election, 
were held over until a special convention, also in February [page 
105]. The tentative draft of its political platform, Labour and the 
New Social Order, 1 in a sense recapitulated the resolutions on in- 
ternal policy adopted at the preceding annual session at Man- 
chester. This was presented at Nottingham, not for adoption, but 
for reference to the constituent organizations in advance of a party 
conference in June [page 125]. 

Nevertheless, the Nottingham meeting gathered up all these 
strands into the cordage of its organized purpose and easily may 
come to be looked back upon as the outstanding labor gathering 
of the war in England. Some of its characteristics may well be set 
down here, as a cross section, if you will, of the British labor move- 
ment as a whole, master type of the uncounted, lesser meetings 
which led up to it, meetings of local and national unions, meetings 
of city and district federations. The delegates responded to spir- 
ited idealism from the speakers' platform. Again and again, some 
fiery radical from a back row would stir them into cheers. They 
responded less exuberantly, perhaps, but none the less just as spon- 
taneously to homely challenges to fair play and to common sense. 
They threw open their doors to the representative of the Russian 
Bolsheviki and acclaimed the revolution; heard him rail at the 
"moderates," and, "moderates" themselves, nine-tenths of them, 
the delegates went on about their solid business in a solid way. 

As a political convention, the thing which most impressed the 
American observer was the pains taken to provide for the deliberate 

appendix IV. 

42 



THE NOTTINGHAM MEETING 43 

consideration of policy. Under the rules every constituent organ- 
ization had been obliged to forward to headquarters the resolutions 
it had to offer. All these had been sent out from headquarters to 
all the constituent organizations, so that both the resolutions thus 
offered and amendments thereto by other labor bodies were in 
hand in advance of the convention itself. The whole batch was 
classified, published in a forty-four page agenda and distributed 
at the first session. Representatives of such constituent organiza- 
tions as had offered resolutions or amendments on any one sub- 
ject, on the Ministry of Health, for example, or on the Soldiers' 
Charter, were asked to meet together in committee and endeavor 
to reach a joint draft. This in turn was printed forthwith and 
distributed to the delegates on the day for discussion of the subject. 
As already noted, the proposal for party reorganization was 
put over for a full month to give the constituent organizations time 
to debate it; the draft of the party program, for six months. In 
the current temper of the public toward queues outside the bakers' 
shops and meat markets, there was naturally bitter attack upon the 
government's handling of the food question, both in resolutions 
sent in and on the floor. But when J. R. Clynes, M.P., the labor 
member of the food administration, turned the tables, charged 
the unions with failing to cooperate in the local councils and put 
it up to them to work out a better scheme, he carried his audience 
with him. 

Thus, all through the conference, sympathy for the oppressed 
of all nations and "grousing" against abuses at home were some- 
how or other, in true British psychology, consistent parts of a mat- 
ter-of-fact grappling with practical things. The old watch-cries 
against capitalistic excesses had their customary echoes, yet the 
impression abided that here was developing something different 
both from rigid continental socialism and from the old trade union- 
ism — something organic, national, British. 

Indeed, the pre-war preachers of class hatred were conspicuous 
by their absence. The old-line Socialists in England had, in truth, 
been split by the great war into two groups, both of them com- 
paratively small in numbers. 

One group, the British Socialist Party, was fairly analogous in 
its direct opposition to the war to the stand taken by the American 
Socialist Party at St. Louis, just prior to our entry into the war. 
Its offices were raided by the government in January, and litera- 
ture was confiscated that it had planned to distribute at the Not- 
tingham meeting of the Labour Party. The other group, including 
some of the most extreme antagonists of the social order, merely 
crossed off "class" and wrote in "race" in the matter of their feel- 



44 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

ings and anathemas and became readily enough a race-hatred, jingo 
section — the National Socialist Party— which, unlike the Labour 
Party, made no distinction between the German government and 
the German people. Its resolution declaring against any interna- 
tional conference "so long as the Germans occupy the territories 
they have seized and carry on their campaign of murder, outrage 
and piracy," was heavily defeated at an inter-Allied conference in 
London on August 21, 191 7. Its position was fairly analogous to 
that assumed by the American Federation of Labor once the United 
States itself became a belligerent. 

In contrast, there was a very evident resurgence of feeling of 
working class brotherhood at Nottingham, and the fraternal dele- 
gates from Allied countries were made to feel by the applause 
which followed their speeches that the things in common were 
bigger than the things in difference. 

More, the delegates began with singing ConnelPs familiar "Red 
Flag," which was distributed by The Herald. They did not balk 
nor turn a hair at the second stanza, which runs: 

Look round — the Frenchman loves its blaze; 
The sturdy German chants in praise; 
In Moscow's vaults its hymns are sung; 
Chicago swells the surging throng. 

They sang it with the unction of a Progressive Party rally singing 
"Onward, Christian Soldiers," but with this difference: they knew 
the words, and with one accord they gave the full-throated chorus 
for a seventh and last time at its close, singing it standing, heads 
up, in a great rolling bass: 

Then raise the scarlet standard high! 
Within its shade we'll live or die; 
Tho' cowards flinch and traitors sneer, 
We'll keep the red flag flying here. 

From the gallery, before they had sat down, the call came for 
three cheers for the Russian revolution. They were given. Three 
cheers for the Austrian working class strike (then on). They were 
given. Three cheers for peace. Given with three times the volume 
of the others. A further call from the gallery for three "boos" for 
the labor "comb-out" raised more of a laugh than a cheer from 
the assembly. 

As they sat down, the observer endeavored to size up these 
people who had been singing socialist songs and cheering peace 
in wartime. This was not what New Yorkers call a "Cooper Union 



THE NOTTINGHAM MEETING 45 

crowd." A day or so later at the headquarter's hotel, one member 
of the government labor delegation that was later sent to America 
pointed with a flip of his thumb at a party of long-haired, thin- 
cheeked agitators at a nearby table; there was a girl with them 
with bobbed hair and a socialist minister in black. "And they talk 
of that kind being the government, eh?" he scoffed. But this hall- 
full of labor delegates were predominantly of another sort, with 
wrists as thick as his own, and with sons, like his, in the trenches. 
It was made up largely of men forty years old or older. There 
were a dozen bald heads in the first five rows, for example, and as 
many polls of gray hair — perhaps a third of the fifty men who sat 
in them. And speaker after speaker who got up in the course 
of the three days' proceedings came to mind a few days later when 
one of the leading English economists said in a matter-of-fact 
way that there were in the Labour Party more men of capacity and 
experience, fitting them for responsibility and leadership in seeing 
England through the reconstruction period, than in either the coali- 
tion government or the Liberal Party. 

At the Nottingham meeting, for the first time, the labor move- 
ment clearly demarked itself from the coalition government, as a 
party of opposition if events so developed, but rather, for the pres- 
ent and for the future, as a party of affirmative proposal. Its 
Labour and the New Social Order 1 was its charter for the recon- 
struction period; its Labour War Aims 2 its international program. 
Eight labor leaders were members of the Lloyd George minis- 
try; Barnes a member of the War Cabinet. But while the vote 
of the conference was against demanding their withdrawal on ques- 
tions of policy (Henderson in person leading the opposition to the 
demand, on the ground that it might embarrass the government in 
the prosecution of the war), there was no hiding the satisfaction in 
the corridors over trouble two of them were having in their con- 
stituencies, and there was general approval of Henderson's state- 
ment that never again would he be a member of a government in 
which labor was not in a majority. 

At the Nottingham meeting, also, the swing of the labor move- 
ment toward the "left" in the matter of foreign policy, as the 
outcome of the three war years, stood out as an accomplished fact. 

The underlying situation was the subject of various interpreta- 
tions. Nottingham, in January, 1918, the week of the meeting, 
presented the customary look of an old industrial town, a textile 
center superimposed upon a mining district. There were few young 
men abroad. Working girls streamed to the mills in the mornings, 

1 Appendix IV. 

2 Appendix II. 



46 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

young girls in numbers which indicated that they must have been 
recruited from other communities. 

At night there were cheap shows a-plenty. A war loan cam- 
paign with its big bulletin boards created more of a stir than the 
labor meeting. It brought crowds of girls and middle-aged folk 
to the public square at noon, very different from the omnipresent 
khaki clad youth of central London; drab crowds, lit up only here 
and there by the occasional uniforms of men on leave, by the 
over-all blue and bright red ties of convalescent soldiers, and by 
picturesque window washers with their ladders; girls, these, in khaki 
pantaloons, who seemed to enjoy the glances that followed them as 
they threaded from one sidewalk group to another. Agents of the. 
British Workers' League passed out sheets among them denouncing 
the British Labour Party — and at the other extreme, at the confer- 
ence hall, other agents passed out copies of The Herald, challeng- 
ing the government on the issue of the secret treaties and giving 
news of railway unions whose officers had refused to go on the 
government sight-seeing junkets to the front, — of Irish developments, 
— of the mistreatment of conscientious objectors, — of local labor 
demonstrations at a dozen points fanning strikes to force peace 
negotiations — copies, also, of Sylvia Pankhurst's Dreadnought, 
which apparently was at one with the Bolsheviki in its program 
for immediate industrial action to stop the war. 

The local Nottingham newspapers interspersed their war bul- 
letins with customary local happenings — from church activities to 
murder mysteries. Here could be learned the participation of cer- 
tain of the labor leaders in outside meetings — from Purdy at a 
patriotic rally and Henderson at a temperance gathering to Smillie 
at a miners' meeting and MacDonald at a gathering of the local 
I. L. P. They gave up columns to the labor meetings, colored after 
their bent, and their reporters seemed, if anything, impressed with 
two facts more than others — that here was a national meeting which 
the town dignitaries had not been asked to open formally, and one 
which was entirely free so far as the galleries went, without ticket 
or privilege, to whoever came. One of the papers voiced the con- 
demnation of the Tory press: 

The German of to-day still stands out as the most fiendish crea- 
ture upon earth, and the German socialist is just as bad as the man 
who is not a socialist. In Russia a gang of socialist ruffians have, 
for the moment, obtained power, and they are murdering and plun- 
dering every one who stands in the way when they get the chance. 
This is exactly what they did in Paris many years ago. Socialist 
methods there, as elsewhere, were methods of murder and outrage, 
backed up by lying on one side, and by unlimited profession of fine 



THE NOTTINGHAM MEETING 47 

motives on the other. And to-day we have the curious spectacle of 
British and foreign socialists gathered in this city to propound afresh 
their soul-destroying principles. The most striking thing about the 
actions of these people is their amazing effrontery and impudence. 
They profess to speak for the people of England. They profess to 
be able to stop the war. They claim to know more about it than any 
one else, and they misrepresent notorious facts in the most flagrant 
manner. The real fact is, of course, that they are oratorical wind- 
bags, without sense of knowledge, who have permitted themselves 
to be fooled into the acceptance of ideas that are false from begin- 
ning to ending, and they are permitting themselves to be fooled, also, 
by abler and less scrupulous men into playing the German game. 
For the time being socialists have ruined Russia, and seem deter- 
mined to drench that unhappy country in the blood of its own people. 
Russian socialists will not fight Germany, but they have no hesita- 
tion in turning machine guns upon honest and honorable Russian 
people, or in hiring assassins to murder Russian patriots. English 
socialists have not gone so far as this as yet, but it is only necessary 
to read reports of some of the speeches delivered in Nottingham 
yesterday to see that English socialists are traveling in the same 
direction as their Russian fellows. They have only to travel a little 
further on the same road to be ready to crush every person who 
disagrees with them without mercy. And what have socialists to 
offer us in exchange for the conditions they wish to destroy ? Noth- 
ing but a German victory in the war, and a dead world when the 
war is ended. 

A note of serious apprehension was struck that week by the 
New Statesman, the Fabian review, pro-war from the beginning 
and strongly committed to the war-aims labor program. The dele- 
gates were full of enthusiasm and hope, it said, for the general 
election that must follow the passage into law of the representa- 
tion-of-the-people bill : 

But over them all lay the shadow, not only of war, but of possi- 
ble impending national calamity. A large number of these delegates 
from the mine and the railway, the shipyard and the forge, together 
with the officials of the trades unions in which the four million or- 
ganized workmen are enrolled, brought with them to Nottingham the 
news of industrial unrest, of social discontent (acute to the bursting 
point), of the rank and file locally taking momentous decisions into 
their own hands, of the very serious possibility of sudden and spon- 
taneous industrial disturbance. These men are, save for a relatively 
insignificant minority, not "pacifists." They have just declared, as 
their own "War Aims," terms which the Prime Minister found no 
great difficulty in substantially adopting as those of the Allied Powers. 
The discussions at the conference showed no weakening on these 
terms, and revealed, in fact, only a confirmation of the desire of 



48 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

British Labor to stand by the national cause as British Labor 
has defined it. But the delegates made no concealment of their ap- 
prehensions that the grave popular discontent with the proceedings 
of Mr. Lloyd George's government — with its continued failure to 
assure to the people their daily rations, with its unexplained hesi- 
tancy in enforcing any real equality of sacrifice among rich and 
poor, with the industrial policy of the Ministry of Munitions, with 
the imperious tone of the director of national service, with the 
government's breaches of faith — might any day burst into a flame 
which the industrial leaders and officials would be unable to repress. 
That such an outburst of popular discontent with what is regarded 
as a blundering and partial administration might precipitate what 
would be essentially a class struggle, in which forces of repression 
and violence would be evoked, was only part of the calamity that 
was feared. It is due to these workmen to record that their greatest 
concern was as to the possibly disastrous effect of such a struggle 
upon the national cause. 

A different face on the situation, little clouded by apprehen- 
sion, was put by such spokesmen for the "left" as MacDonald and 
Smillie; rather they saw it overspread by the flush of a mounting 
working class purpose, long espoused by them when espousal meant 
obloquy, but now released by the very circumstances which in 
mid- winter were affecting the temper of all England. Only as that 
purpose was inhibited or thwarted did they see cause for appre- 
hension or condemnation; only then, as they saw it, would those 
circumstances make for national disintegration rather than for a 
democratic determinism. 

The president of the Nottingham conference was W. Frank 
Purdy, of the Shipconstructors and Shipwrights Association. In 
the course of his presidential address, he said: 

Do the peace negotiations between Russia and the central em- 
pires show that Germany is willing to agree to the formula of "no 
annexations and no indemnities"? The military party in Germany 
have again assumed the ascendancy. Why ? Look at the war map of 
Europe, and that will supply the reason. The Germans hold more 
territory of the allies in 1917 than they did in 1915. While Germany 
still occupies these territories, a peace by negotiation would be inter- 
preted by her as a victory for herself and her allies and would fasten 
militarism more strongly on the people of Germany and more 
strongly on the people of the British empire and the whole world. 
It might bring peace; but it would be a drawn and inconclusive 
peace and would leave future generations exposed to a renewal of 
this terrible carnage. If Germany and her allies are not willing to 
declare that they accept the principles which our government and 
the President of the United States have now published to the world, 
then we must fight on. No other course is left open to us, if we 



THE NOTTINGHAM MEETING 49 

value our honor as a nation and our pledged word to Belgium, Serbia 
and France. We owe it as a duty to those who have made the 
supreme sacrifice, and to those who have been disabled in the war, 
to carry on until a clean peace is secured which will enable the 
peoples of the world to live in security. 

The tank which was touring the English provincial towns in 
the interest of war bonds, was in Nottingham the week of the 
conference, and President Purdy was a speaker at one of the noon- 
day meetings. He stood at one end of the new working majority, 
Smillie and MacDonald at the other. So far had the pendulum 
swung that the I. L. P. resolution on the war, which would have 
been downed at the annual convention a year before at Manchester, 
had sufficient votes to carry it at Nottingham. It was shelved for 
the sake of unity with the Trades Union Congress on the resolu- 
tions subsequently adopted, but as evidence of the trend of feeling 
of the rank and file, it was of significance. It read: 

That in the opinion of this conference the war marks the break- 
down of the old method of diplomacy which settled the international 
relations of the peoples without consulting, or even informing them; 
it declares that in the past the failure has not been with soldiers, 
but with statesmen, who have used victories to impose terms of peace 
which left suspicion, hate and resentment behind, which were fol- 
lowed by military alliances and armaments, and which violated the 
principles of self-government in order to satisfy military demands 
and imperialist appetites; it therefore calls upon the government, if 
the sacrifices of the war have not been in vain, to provide for the 
direct representation of the organized democracy in every conference 
which discusses the conditions of peace, to reject war aims which 
give the war the character of an imperialist venture, and to use its 
influence and authority in every possible way to remove the causes 
of war ; to this end, the conference declares that no obstacle should 
be put in the way of responsible representatives of labor conferring 
together with a view to arriving at such an understanding upon the 
problems of Europe, as will receive the cooperative support of all 
the democracies, without which there can be no lasting peace. 

It was Arthur Henderson who served as the link holding to- 
gether the various elements in the new working majority. The 
swing toward the left would have gone on without him. As a mem- 
ber of the War Cabinet, he was losing his grip on the labor move- 
ment; his dismissal by the government reinstated him; and he 
had the adroitness to make the most of it tactically, the keenness 
to sense the shift in sentiment, the commonality to share in it, and 
the statesmanship to help turn the unrest and. mass movement of 
the rank and file, into a constructive program. 



50 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

Our first impression of him was unfavorable. This was at the 
Labour Party Headquarters at i Victoria Street, before the Not- 
tingham conference, when he responded to an inquiry with a bit 
of a formal stump speech, such as he must have given a hundred 
times. But on the platform of the Nottingham meeting he won 
entire respect. He represented the Iron-founders Society as a trade 
unionist; had long been a member of Parliament. He is in the 
fifties and, with his long frock coat, his neatly slicked hair, the 
worn but firm marking of his face, he has not a few of the marks 
of the manual worker who has forged to the front either in busi- 
ness or public office, in church ministry or in labor leadership. Hen- 
derson has figured in the last three. He is a rare handler of men, 
with an old parliamentarian's trick of declaring in vehement speech 
some conservative course. He came out of every tilt on the floor 
of the convention on top, including one with no less formidable 
an opponent than John Hodge of the Iron, Steel and Kindred Trades 
Association, in which the latter publicly apologized. It was the 
same when the attack veered from the extreme right to the extreme 
left. An English social worker described him as a development 
over any English labor leader in the past — in the fact that he had 
the sagacity to surround himself with a group of men of parts, 
both from the ranks of labor and from the professions, upon whom 
he drew for ideas and counsel. Henderson's own contributions to 
the social thinking and clear utterance that was going forward were 
by no means the least of the group, but it was as an organizer 
that his powers of leadership stood out, in welding an as yet 
invulnerable labor group and steering it successfully away from 
quicksands and against the ill winds of some of the shrewdest and 
most powerful elements in English public life. The measure of 
his success at Nottingham was the passage of the resolutions already 
agreed upon with the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union 
Congress. These not only sanctioned the "war aims," and banked 
up united British labor behind them, but wrote an enacting clause 
after them, in the decision to go ahead with the procedure of inter- 
allied and international conferences. 

Under the caption "Peace," the resolutions read: 

That this Conference representing the organizations affiliated to 
the Labour Party — 

(a) Welcomes the statements as to War Aims made by the 
British Prime Minister and President Wilson, in so far as 
they are in harmony with the War Aims of the British La- 
bor Movement, and make for an honorable and Democratic 
Peace ; 

(b) Presses the Allied Governments to formulate and publish 



THE NOTTINGHAM MEETING 51 

at the earliest possible moment a joint statement of their 
War Aims in harmony with the above; 

(c) Approves the arrangements made for the holding of a fur- 
ther conference in London on the 20th February of the 
Labour and Socialist Parties of the Allied nations on the 
basis of the War Aims of British Labor with the view of 
arriving at a general agreement among such Parties; 

(d) Calls upon the working class organization of the Central 
Powers to declare their War Aims and to influence their 
Governments to make statements of their War Aims in 
order that the world may see how far the declaration of 
all the Powers provide a basis for a negotiated and lasting 
Peace, and 

(e) Assuming that a general agreement can be arrived at by 
the labor and socialist parties of the Allied nations directs 
that their several governments should be then at once urged 
to allow facilities for attendance at an International Con- 
gress in some neutral state, preferably Switzerland, at which 
organized working class opinion of all the countries may 
be represented, in order that nothing may be left undone to 
bring into harmony the desires of the working classes of all 
the belligerents. 

That a copy be forwarded to the Prime Minister. 



CHAPTER VII 

THE NEW ISSUE AND ITS ENGINEERS 

Enough has been said to bring out with clearness that the 
British labor offensive was not to be mistaken for a propaganda 
movement rallied behind a few watch cries and recruited up from 
a handful of men to a mass agitation. If we are seeking a com- 
parison in current American history, to what had taken place in 
the British Labour Party, it would be to imagine that the insurgent 
movement in the Republican Party had found the national leaders 
swinging with it in 191 2, or had succeeded in shifting control from 
such stand-patters as Taft, Root and Cannon to Roosevelt, John- 
son and the progressives; or to recall the new and progressive tilt 
to the balance of power in the Democratic organization which came 
that year with the triumph of the Wilson Democrats at Baltimore. 
There was something tidal at work in American political life. But 
these alignments were not at a time of such transcendant national 
crisis, forcing men inexorably back to the bedrock of their make-up 
for choices, nor were they concerned so closely with the things 
which affect the individual in the everyday stuff of life and 
labor. 

The emergence of the new leadership might be disposed of off- 
hand as the recourse of a few disgruntled labor politicians despoiled 
of office and anxious not to return to the bench. It might be dis- 
counted as the stampeding of the sober mass of labor by a group of 
hotheads, the old leaders going with the crowd lest their places be 
taken from them. These things might have entered in, but as ex- 
planations they were altogether too fine-spun. 

The upward thrust of the new labor motivation had been a mat- 
ter of growth within a great social organism, the membership of 
which had gone through a searching common experience and come 
out feeling the same way. In later chapters we shall press our 
exploration back of the sphere of war relations to that of domestic 
politics, and again back of the sphere of domestic politics to that 
of the workaday life — revealing ever deeper reaches of experience, 
an ever swelling volume of common feeling. The engineers of the 
new offensive had been party to this experience, had shared in this 
feeling, and this had come to be as true of the labor "center" as of 

52 



THE NEW ISSUE AND ITS ENGINEERS 53 

the "left." It is on the new majority that we can now fix attention, 
on the men who for two years have guided developments, if we 
would get close to the realities. 

The swing was toward the left — not to it. 

There has been no end of confusion and distortion as to the 
personnel of the British labor offensive. It has been associated 
by some with advocacy of a patched up peace that would have 
meant knuckling in to German militarism. Now, the man who 
drafted the war aims memorandum was Sidney Webb, who from 
the beginning had been backing up the war in the New Statesman. 
Americans will remember a member of the British mission which 
visited this country in the early months of the war. He was called 
by a New York banker the largest calibered labor man he had 
ever met. This was J. H. Thomas. He was to be found at Not- 
tingham, at the head of the delegation of the National Union of 
Railwaymen. He was chairman of one of the chief committees at 
the subsequent inter-Allied meeting. In each of the great British 
labor gatherings of the last two years, — as we have seen at London 
and Birmingham, Blackpool and Derby, — he has been in a sense 
the floor leader of that central group which, with a steadfast fol- 
lowing behind them, have held the new majority intact and con- 
verted the swing toward the left into a new dynamic, cohering 
and not disrupting the forces of labor. He has been close to Hen- 
derson, who quit the government because, in his words at Black- 
pool, he had "refused to do what I never will do, namely, desert 
the people who sent me into the government," and to Clynes, who 
coolly told the delegates at Nottingham that he would quit the 
party if they forced a premature issue with the government, which, 
in the view of these leaders, might embarrass the nation in the 
active prosecution of the war. The war aims had been put out by 
the new working majority in which, as we have seen, these three 
and their kind struck hands with such men as Ramsay MacDonald 
and Robert Smillie, who had stood out for working class negotia- 
tions from the first year of the war. The issue was not pacifism, 
but imperialism, and the new working majority offered itself as 
a nucleus around which the democratic forces of England might 
unite. Reviewing Henderson's new book, "The Aims of Labour," 
Sidney Webb wrote in The New Statesman: 

... It is sometimes forgotten how considerable was the effect 
upon the spiritual course of the war which followed Mr. Henderson's 
resignation from the Government. The people of this country have 
always from the first moment of the war had only one object, a peo- 
ple's peace ; but there is no doubt that as the exigencies of war grad- 
ually caused all control of policy to be surrendered into the hands 



54 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

of governments, a feeling of helplessness, of inability to affect 
policy, settled upon labor and the peoples in Western Europe. Mr. 
Henderson's resignation dissipated in this country that feeling of 
helplessness and canalized once more the desires and determination 
of labor to control policy and accept only a people's peace. 

As a check and confirmation both of our impressions as visiting 
journalists and of the ex parte statements of the labor men them- 
selves, it will serve the purposes of this interpretation to quote a 
keen English observer, interviewed just before the Nottingham 
convention. A man of large independent means, he could not be 
charged with class bias; a university man, he was conscious of 
those larger implications of the English birthright that must not 
be sacrificed for to-day's pottage; an indefatigable worker in the 
war service of the nation, he was not of the sort to give aid or 
comfort to the enemy. As he saw it, British labor opinion was 
crystallizing about four or five main propositions: 

1. For an unimperialistic peace. Their demand that the govern- 
ment commit itself unreservedly to such a policy was back: of the re- 
cent pronouncements and pressure upon Lloyd George. Labor, he 
believed, would back up the war unreservedly so long as Germany 
failed to meet the Allies on this footing. 

2. For participation of the people in foreign affairs. They felt 
that the old scheme of things in which they had no say, and the 
general muddle of secret diplomacy, had let them in for the present 
war. This had bred a determination that this should not happen 
again. They believed that the government had mishandled the Rus- 
sian situation; they desired to take a hand, to find out about it, and 
to reach the working class opinion of other countries. 

3. For disarmament ; to get the burden of militarism off the backs 
of the workers. 

4. For democratization of industry; they wanted a direct say 
over the conditions and affairs of work; and more, to participate 
themselves hereafter in the management of industry. 

5. For a league of nations. 

The insight and precision of these generalizations our further 
inquiries tended only to substantiate; a better telegraphic sum- 
mary of the major trends of the British labor movement could 
scarcely be written than the five propositions as they lay in our 
informant's mind. The particularity of his information was shown 
when we asked him to specify why labor felt the government had 
mishandled the Russian situation in 191 7. He grouped points which 
in their reaction upon working class opinion both in England and 
in Russia were, he §aid ? now more and more recognized as blun- 
ders: 



THE NEW ISSUE AND ITS ENGINEERS 55 

Blunder 1. The statements of Lord Milner when in Russia, in the 
last days of the old regime, supporting the Czar's government and 
making the revolutionists feel that England was against them. 

Blunder 2. The statement of a member of the ministry in Parlia- 
ment after the revolution broke out, eulogizing the Czar's govern- 
ment as an Ally. 

Blunder 3. The refusal to let English labor participate in the 
Stockholm conference. A statement was given out which indicated 
that the Kerensky government was opposed to the meeting, without 
letting it be known that this expression was from the Russian Em- 
bassy in London, and not from Kerensky. When this reached Rus- 
sia, it not only had a bad effect on Kerensky but undermined his 
position. Henderson's resignation confirmed the feeling among Eng- 
lish labor on this point. 

Blunder 4. Acquiescence by the government in the refusal of 
Havelock Wilson and the Sailors' Union to transport Ramsay Mac- 
Donald to Russia. MacDonald had great influence in foreign labor 
circles. He was whole-heartedly for Kerensky, against a separate 
peace, etc. He would have unquestionably fortified the provisional 
government. 

Blunder 5. The failure to carry out an inter-Allied government 
conference and meet the Russians half way in the matter of war 
aims. The revolution had made any earlier understandings between 
the Allies, to the mind of the Russian people, a compact with the 
discredited regime of the Czar. In failing to carry through an offi- 
cial inter-Allied conference restating the purposes of the war, and in 
failing to let English labor participate in the Stockholm conference, 
Great Britain was acting in line with positions taken by France and 
Italy. Lloyd George had been, it was thought, favorably disposed 
toward such fresh action and England, as labor saw it, should have 
asserted her position. 

Blunder 6. The failure to allay the mistrust by labor of the men 
surrounding Lloyd George — Milner, the man generally credited with 
getting England into the Boer War mess; Prussian in temperament 
and training; Carson, the aggravating delayer of Irish settlement; 
hated throughout the north of England; Curzon, who, as viceroy, 
had set India at heads and points; — that is, in labor's view, impe- 
rialists who had messed up British relations with South Africa, India 
and Ireland. 

It may well be asked how far such delicate questions reached 
down to the average man in the form of gripping issues: but to see 
that they were bone and sinew of the protestantism of the British 
labor leadership, one had only to mark their recurrence in labor 
press and speeches. Believing that such cabinet members were 
the last men to deal in the spirit of English democracy either with 
revolution abroad (in Germany no less than in Russia), or with 
democratic strivings at home, the moderate central leaders were 



56 THE BRITISH LABOR OFFENSIVE 

confronted with the problem of organizing sentiment in such a 
way that, without weakening the war as a defensive measure against 
Prussian autocracy, they might carry overseas, as an alternative 
projection of foreign policy, those democratic fires which were kin- 
dled in the earliest history of English institutions and which have 
found new torch-bearers with each new age. 

As a problem of organization, the first objective was to muster 
the full strength of British labor and those who would bank up 
behind it. Here the British Labour Party offered a natural base 
of operations, including in its membership both socialists with 
their kindling visions and trade unionists with their untapped 
strength; ready, also, to throw open its doors to professional peo- 
ple, to cooperators, to farmers, to women — to the common people 
of the nation. All but simultaneously came the awakening as we 
have seen of the older, larger, labor body in the industrial sphere — 
the Trades Union Congress; and at each point the Labour Party 
had been content to go at such pace as would find the twain 
shoulder to shoulder. 

The second objective was, on the basis of this united British 
movement and its program, to muster the full strength of Allied 
labor. On the continent, in contrast to the English situation, the 
most prominent groups are socialist, but the re-creation of the 
old Socialist International Bureau was put aside and a broadened 
conference called, trade union and socialist alike, but designed to 
build on the dominant working class formations in each nation, in 
an effort to achieve that unity which had escaped them in the more 
loosely organized Inter-Allied conference in London, in August, 
19 1 7, The effect of this decision on the make up of the Inter- Allied 
Labour and Socialist Conference at London in February, 191 8, 
was several-fold. 

With respect to British trade union bodies, it left out the 
General Federation of Trade Unions which originally grew out of a 
strike insurance fund created by the British Trades Union Congress 
and now numbered some 800,000 members, as against over four 
million in the Congress. Many of its affiliated unions were mem- 
bers of the latter body, so that its distinctive membership was 
under 100,000. On the other hand, the textile workers and miners, 
for example, two of the strongest national groups, did not belong 
to the General Federation. In 191 7, the Parliamentary Committee 
of the Trades Union Congress and the executive of the British 
Labour Party broke up a joint committee representing these two 
organizations together with the Federation, and reformed the com- 
mittee, excluding the Federation. 

With respect to minor British socialist bodies, the decision was 



THE NEW ISSUE AND ITS ENGINEERS 57 

equally drastic. At pre-war international socialist congresses, the 
120 British delegates had been allotted so that the Labour Party 
sent 60, the Independent Labour Party 25, the British Socialist 
Party 25 and the Fabian Society 6. At London, British representa- 
tion from the political field was confined to the Labour Party, and 
although four members of the smaller, more radical Independent 
Labour Party were included in the Labour Party delegation, they 
refused to attend on that basis. Ramsay MacDonald, a member 
of the I. L. P. executive, participated, however, as treasurer of 
the Labour Party. Neither minority organization, the General 
Federation of Trade Unions on the extreme right nor the I. L. P. 
on the extreme left, was happy at this turn of affairs. 

With respect to outside delegations, the effect of the decision was 
to omit representation of neutrals. 

So much for delimitations; on the positive side the effect of the 
decision was to throw open the doors on equal footing in joint 
session with the socialists, to the distinctly trade union formations, 
such as the British Trades Union Congress, the French Confedera- 
tion Generate du Travail and the American Federation of Labor. 
With respect to the United States, the British leaders compromised 
their procedure by not inviting to the London meeting the Amer- 
ican Socialist Party as the leading political labor body in the United 
States; doing so on the understanding that, otherwise, the Amer- 
ican Federation of Labor would not participate; and doing so, only 
to have the Federation go unrepresented after all. 

But the working class movement of the Allied European nations, 
socialist and labor alike, turned out in strength and achieved the 
sought-for unity. 



PART II 
THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE AT LONDON 

On the opening day of the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist 
Conference in London (February 20, 19 18), J. W. Ogden, chair- 
man of the Parliamentary Committee of the British Trades Union 
Congress, presided. The gathering, he said, was unique in the 
history of the labor movement — the first occasion on which the 
workers had unitedly evinced a determination to take a dominating 
part in the issues of war and peace; and for justification: 

Our initial declaration that, whatever may have been the causes 
of the outbreak of the war, it is clear that the peoples of Europe 
who are necessarily the chief sufferers from its horrors had them- 
selves no hand in it, is a truth so insistent and indisputable that we 
are justified in putting the strongest possible emphasis on the state- 
ment. 

The London Times in its news report put the case from another 
and less sympathetic angle: 

Whatever else may be uncertain, there can be no doubt that those 
who have called to-day's meeting are determined to strain every 
nerve in the effort to secure a settlement of the war by the inter- 
vention of what are, after all, only sections of the nations. 

This London conference of February, 19 18, according to the 
official statement issued at its closing session, consisted of the 
following delegations: 

The members of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades 
Union Congress and of the National Executive of the Labour Party; 
representatives of the Italian Socialist Union and the Italian Official 
Socialists; representatives of the Confederation General du Travail 
and of the French Socialist Party; and representatives of the Bel- 
gian Labour Party. There were also present consultative delegates 
from South Africa, Rumania, and the South Slav organizations. 

Messages were read from organizations in New Zealand, Portu- 
gal, South Africa, Rumania and from the Social Revolutionary Party 
in Russia, endorsing the British labor memorandum 011 war aims. 

Camille Huysmans (secretary of the International Socialist Bu- 
reau) read a telegram sent to the French Socialist Party by Rous- 

61 



62 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

sanofif, Soukhomline, and Erlich, on behalf of the Menshevik section 
of the Russian Social Democratic Party and the Russian Social 
Revolutionary Party, intimating that these sections of the Russian 
Socialist movement had appointed delegates to attend the Inter-Allied 
Conference. The Bolshevist government, however, had refused 
passports to the delegations, and the message recorded their emphatic 
protest against this measure. 

Incidentally, the concluding sentence supplied an interesting 
footnote to the attempt, currently made in the United States, to 
identify the proceedings at London with the Bolsheviki and the 
Brest-Litovsk negotiations. There were present at London, how- 
ever, representatives of the Italian Official Socialists, whose national 
officers, Lazzari and Bombacci, were in March, 1918, sentenced to 
prison for issuing circulars in November, December and January. 
In these they had urged, according to the Rome dispatches, "every 
possible opposition to war," and upheld "their Russian comrades." 
Their defence was that they considered themselves bound by the 
International Socialist Congress at Basel in 1912, and "that it was 
their duty to remain apart from the war and do everything they 
could to secure peace." At London, also, the French minority 
socialists had equal representation with the French majority 
(numerically the names had become a misfit) in the united French 
delegation; but the Kienthalians (the extreme left) were not repre- 
sented. 

But to set up the inference that the London conference was 
only a new front for the extremists is as beside the mark as were 
the efforts to characterize the suffrage movement in its earlier stages 
by the positions taken on marriage by some of the more pronounced 
feminists; or to identify the Lincoln Republicans with the aboli- 
tionists in the campaign of eighteen-sixty. The engineers of the 
British labor offensive set the gauge of their movement broad enough 
to draw into their affirmative program and procedure, elements 
which until then had been largely negative in their attitude towards 
the war, together with the larger groups which had been consistently 
for the war. To do less than that would have been to defeat the 
very purpose of the movement, namely, to afford a constructive 
sluice-way for all the springs of working-class unrest and aspiration 
among the western democracies and turn them into a constructive 
force. It was this affirmative program and procedure which, as 
such, united them and became the object of their support. 

That labor should seek unity in things essential, in things not 
essential, liberty; is one of the most characteristic of Henderson's 
phrases. It was the spirit of the conference leadership — letting the 
defeatists, on the one extreme, and the chauvinists, on the other, 



THE INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE AT LONDON 63 

go their ways apart, while proceeding deliberately with the major- 
ity program, backed up by the center and the strong intermediate 
elements toward right and left. The London correspondent of the 
Manchester Guardian, commenting on the success of the February 
conference to get together, where that of August had failed, pointed 
out that platform and procedure were the result of a "distinct will 
for unity." Early in the meeting, Canepa for the Italian reformist 
group reported that they were ready to agree with the British 
memorandum with very slight amendments and that they had had 
conferences with the Jugo-Slavs as a result of which a considerable 
measure of agreement had been disclosed — a statement foreshad- 
owing the later official approachment between the Italian govern- 
ment and the Jugo-Slavs. Albert Thomas, who as minister of 
munitions earlier in the war is credited with having done for 
France what Lloyd George did for England in speeding up the pro- 
duction of war material, toured England following the London con- 
ference, speaking on platforms with members of the cabinet and 
others in behalf of Anglo-French understanding and unity. He 
stood for the same thing in the conference of the workers. At the 
opening session he reported that never had there been such a 
"healthy and unanimous collaboration between the Socialist Party 
and the Federation of Labor in France as now." "The French 
Socialist Party in their National Council had registered agreement 
in such a majority that it might be described as practically unani- 
mous." And at the closing luncheon, the London Times quoted 
him as saying that 

the conference had done what the governments and the old tradi- 
tional diplomacy had refused to do. It had never hesitated to face 
difficulties and differences, even on delicate questions. It had been 
able to deal with the question of the colonies, although that vitally 
affected certain British interests. The delegates had also been able 
to discuss frankly and fully the war aims of Italy. They had not 
hesitated, as governments had done, to support the claims of op- 
pressed nationalities, and they had given a definite reply to the 
appeal of the southern Slavs. The governments were concerning 
themselves with propaganda in Germany. Lord Northcliffe had been 
placed in charge of this work here. If he was to be well advised 
he would not rely exclusively on the help of business men, scientists, 
or newspaper men, but would turn to the representatives of the work- 
ing classes. Then he would receive sound advice on the best method 
of speaking to the German people. 

In a sense, the most notable advance of the conference in achiev- 
ing a common procedure was the action of the Belgians. According 
to the official report, Vandervelde stated: 



64 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

During the discussions at the international commission he had 
received a letter from the Belgian Labor Party in which it was 
stated that they had reconsidered the matter and consulted with re- 
sponsible leading members of the Belgian labor movement, and that 
instead of the unanimity that previously existed, there was a ma- 
jority and a minority. The minority was completely in favor of 
giving freedom of action to their three official representatives. The 
majority said that until the German socialists definitely declared that 
they were ready to bring pressure on their government to agree to 
conditions of a democratic peace they thought that an interna- 
tional conference would be practically impossible and morally futile. 
That opinion coincided with the views of the three Belgian dele- 
gates. 

But at the present time they might reasonably discuss the question 
whether the German socialists could be brought into harmony with 
them on the lines of a democratic peace. That question had been 
partly answered by a section of the German socialist movement — the 
Independent Socialist Party. But when the views of the major- 
ity of the German socialists were known, the Belgian socialists 
would be able to judge of the opportuneness of a general confer- 
ence. 

From the beginning of the war he had admitted that the German 
socialists were in a difficult position, and they had to make certain 
allowances for them. Although the grounds of their grievances 
against them were serious, he recognized that, placed between Czar- 
ism and the western democracies, their situation was perplexing. 
The German socialists believed then that the danger was Czarist 
Russia. They could not make that plea now. Germany was sur- 
rounded by none but democracies, free peoples who were fighting to 
resist imperialism, to maintain freedom, and the spirit and forms of 
democratic government. 

To-day, since the Russian revolution, the choice for the Germans 
lay between a democratic peace that would not threaten them and a 
peace dictated by their general staff, which would threaten them and 
the rest of the world with an unbearable servitude. They had before 
them a unique opportunity to confess their socialist faith, atone for 
their past failures, and secure, with freedom for other countries, 
their own freedom from militaristic and imperialistic oppression. 

At the outset of the London conference, five commissions were 
created, and it is significant that in every case the chairmanships 
of these important working committees went to the conservatives. 
Renaudel, the French majority socialist who had recently been 
exposing German spy activities in the industrial districts of France, 
was named as head of the commission to report on the League of 
Nations; Sidney Webb as head of the territorial commission; J. H. 
Thomas as head of the economic commission; Albert Thomas as 
head of the committee on publicity and drafting; and Henderson as 



THE INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE AT LONDON 65 

head of the committee on the advisability and conditions of an 
international conference. 1 

As in all democratic movements, it was possible that at some 
future stage the center of gravity might swing still further to the 
left on the war issue. But the course of military events on both 
fronts, in which the ruthless power and intention of the German 
imperialists showed itself in such stark contrast to the ability of 
the German socialists to counter it, had no other result, in the 
succeeding months, than to stiffen the conviction of the conference 
leadership in standing out for the unremitting prosecution of the 
war as the resistance of the democracies to the transcendant threat 
of Prussian militarism. At the same time they awaited those 
crystallizations in working-class purpose in Germany which, as 
events have proved, they firmly believed their joint unimperialistic 
overtures — like the manganese that is thrown from the outside into 
the molten mass of the converter in a steel mill — might yet help to 
bring into being. 

The London conference made the convincing manifestation of 
that change on the part of the German labor and socialist groups 
a prerequisite to any inter-belligerent meeting — the next objective 
in the British procedure to achieve unity. The controlling para- 
graphs in the war aims memorandum adopted at London read: 

As an essential condition to an international conference, the com- 
mission is of the opinion that the organizers of the conference should 
satisfy themselves that all the organizations to be represented put 
in precise form, by a public declaration, their peace terms in con- 
formity with the principles "no annexations or punitive indemnities, 
and the right of all peoples to self-determination," and that they are 
working with all their power to obtain from their governments the 
necessary guarantees to apply those principles honestly and unre- 
servedly to all questions to be dealt with at any official peace con- 
ference. 

1 The officers of the five commissions were : 

League of Nations. — tM. Renaudel (French Majority Socialist), Chm. ; 
Ramsay MacDonald (British Labour Party), Sec'y- 

Territorial Commission. — Sidney Webb (British Labour Party), Chm.; 
Jean Longuet (French Minority Socialist), Sec'y. 

Economic Commission. — J. H. Thomas, M. P., Chm. 

Publicity and Drafting Commission. — Albert Thomas (French Major- 
ity Socialist), Chm.; G. H. Stuart Bunning (British Trades Union 
Congress), Sec'y. 

Advisability and Conditions of International Conference. — Arthur 
Henderson (British Labour Party), Chm.; M. de Brouckere (Bel- 
gian Socialist), Sec'y. 

Albert Thomas later, at his request, was transferred to the territorial 
.commission. 



66 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

In view of the vital differences between the Allied countries and 
the Central Powers, the commission is of opinion that it is highly- 
desirable that the conference should be used to provide an oppor- 
tunity for the delegates from the respective countries now in a state 
of war to make a full and frank statement of their present position 
and future intentions and to endeavor by mutual agreement to ar- 
range a program of action for a speedy and democratic peace. . . . 

The Belgian delegation, which for the first time came into 
an Inter-Allied conference without a mandate to oppose an inter- 
national gathering, carried conviction as to this conservative pro- 
cedure. Moreover, the London conference did not attempt to rees- 
tablish the International Socialist Bureau with its old scheme of 
representation, but decided that any international conference, 

held during the period of hostilities, should be organized by a com- 
mittee whose impartiality cannot be questioned. It should be held 
in a neutral country, under such conditions as would inspire confi- 
dence; and the conference should be fully representative of all the 
labor and socialist movements in all the belligerent countries accept- 
ing the conditions under which the conference is convoked. 

The fact that the Italian reformists and the French majority 
groups — the pro-war wings of the socialist parties in the Latin 
countries which had shared in the war ministries no less than the 
Belgian socialists — were for this procedure is evidence that they 
had confidence in the safeguards outlined. We must weigh that 
against snap judgments on this side of the water that the Germans 
would have dominated "every feature of the program." 

This London meeting was in early February. In the suc- 
ceeding months the burden upon General Foch as supreme com- 
mander of Allied and American forces in France was to engineer 
such swift, united resistance to the tremendous German drive as 
to leave it a crumpled and disastrous failure. Beneath his imme- 
diate commission observers were quick to see in this move, prompted 
by the crisis, a further step toward organizing that mutual force 
to check and thwart aggression which had been advocated as the 
essential arm of a league of nations. 

The Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conference was a mani- 
festation of another essential factor — a first international joining 
of hands of great social groups that found common cause in the 
principles which they held should enter into the constitution and 
legislation of such a league. 



CHAPTER IX 

ALLIED LABOR'S WAR AIMS 

A point has been reached where we can turn from the steps 
taken in engineering the program upon which British labor had 
united as never before the whole working class movement among 
the Allies, and resolve it into its elements. As Vandervelde said, 
the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conference [London, Feb- 
ruary 20-24, I 9 I &] was charged with working out a platform and 
a procedure. 

The basis of that platform was the war aims memorandum 1 
adopted in December by the British labor movement, but the 
Inter-Allied document 2 transcended all earlier outgivings in its ap- 
proach to the problems of international relations, in the sequence 
with which it marshaled the principles of the workers' statecraft 
and in their application in turn, to the war, to the political ordering 
of the world, to territorial questions, to economic relations and to 
the problems of peace, of restoration and reparation. 

"A device of the capitalist interests," read the Inter-Allied labor 
memorandum, would be "to pretend that the treaty of peace need 
concern itself only with the cessation of the struggle of the armed 
forces and with any necessary territorial adjustments." It reiter- 
ated that "a victory for German imperialism would be the defeat 
and destruction of democracy and liberty in Europe," but it en- 
visaged only less as a defeat any return to the status quo ante 
in terms of a return to competing imperialisms, — to a crushing load 
of competitive armaments on the backs of the workers, — to a world 
order of subject races and subjugated masses, — to the "war system" 
as the world knew it prior to 1914, with its "old yearnings after 
domination" which "corrupted the aspirations of nationalities and 
brought Europe to a condition of anarchy and disorder, which have 
led men to-day to the present catastrophe." "Of all the conditions 
of peace," it said, "none is so important to the peoples of the world 
as that there should be henceforth on earth no more war." It held 
up the vision of a new world which, to the workers, made the 



1 Appendix I. 

2 Appendix II. 



67 



68 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

struggle worth its cost. It brought down to earth and the common 
people thereof each of the great principles of settlement. 

Thus, the Inter-Allied labor memorandum grounded its general 
proposals for a league of nations on the principle of self-government, 
as expressed in the demand for self-determination. It was for 
making the league inclusive of all belligerents and of every inde- 
pendent state, but it was for making the "complete democratiza- 
tion" of any nation the qualification for its participation therein. 
By the same principle, the emphasis put by the diplomats upon 
international courts was thrown by the workers (without abandon- 
ing the tribunals) upon an international parliament. By so much, 
they held, would the common people of the world become sover- 
eign, and look to their security in their own kind, as against the 
"arbitrary powers who, until now, have assumed the right of 
choosing between peace and war." 

Labor's memorandum called for the use by the nations of "any 
and every means at their disposal, either economic or military," in 
making common cause against any state refusing to submit to an 
arbitration award or attempting to break the covenant of peace. But 
it called also for "the prohibition of great armaments on land and 
sea, and for the common limitation of the existing armaments by 
which all the people are burdened," and it did so in order to pre- 
pare "for the concerted abolition of compulsory military service 
in all countries." Thus it put in terms of war and its heavy levies 
upon the working years and the workers' lives, the old American 
rallying cry that "taxation without representation is tyranny." 

It was under the control of a League of Nations, so condi- 
tioned, that the workers were for putting "the consultation of 
peoples for purposes of self-determination"; it was by the estab- 
lishment of such a system of laws and guarantees that they saw 
removed "the last excuse for those strategic protections which 
nations hitherto have felt bound to require." They expressed 
agreement with the four propositions put forward by President Wil- 
son in his message of February n, 191 8, and as against forcible 
annexation or conquest, they grounded their territorial proposi- 
tions on the right of each people to determine their lives. "Neither 
destiny of race nor identity of language," so often a "cloak for 
aggression," but the "desire of the people concerned" was their 
touchstone. The memorandum called specifically — 

For the reparation by the German government of the wrong ad- 
mittedly done Belgium ; full payment for damage done and the resto- 
ration of Belgium as an independent sovereign state. 

For the disannexation of Alsace-Lorraine as a matter of right and 
as precedent to a plebiscite, devised by the League of Nations, such 



ALLIED LABOR'S WAR AIMS 69 

as should "settle forever" the future of the provinces, and finally 
remove from all Europe a quarrel which has imposed so heavy a 
burden upon it. ' 

For the evacuation of Serbia, Montenegro, Rumania, Albania and 
all the Balkan territories occupied by force; redress and reparation 
for all violations; each people to be given full liberty to settle its 
own destiny; and the Balkan states encouraged to federate for the 
settlement of common problems of customs and ports, autonomy, and 
the liberties of minorities. 

For the support of the claims of Italians, hitherto left outside 
Italian boundaries for strategic reasons, to be united with Italy, and 
for full liberty of 'local self-government for such Slavs as remain in 
Italian territory, such Italians as remain on the East shores of the 
Adriatic. 

For the reconstitution of Poland in unity and independence with 
free access to the sea. 

For the abandonment by Germany of any scheme of annexation, 
open or disguised, of Livonia, Courland and Lithuania. 

For according, under the rules of the League of Nations, national 
independence to such of the peoples of Austro-Hungary as demand 
it and their freedom to substitute a federation of Danubian states 
for the Empire. [The conference did "not propose as a war aim," 
its dismemberment or its deprivation of economic access to the sea,, 
but could not admit that the claims of the Czecho-Slovaks and Jugo- 
slavs "must be regarded merely as questions for internal decision."] 

For the freedom of Palestine from "oppressive government by 
the Turk" and the formation of a free state under international guar- 
antee to which the Jewish people may return to work out their own 
salvation free from interference. 

For the freeing of Armenia, Mesopotamia and Arabia from the 
"tyranny of the Sultan and his pashas," and, if their peoples are 
not able to settle their own destinies, for their administration under 
an international commission subject to the League of Nations. 

For the permanent neutralization of the Dardanelles. 

For the special consideration at the Peace Conference of the 
question of colonies taken by conquest; for "economic equality in 
such territories for the people of all nations," for the "concession of 
administrative autonomy for all groups of people that attain a cer- 
tain degree of civilization, and for all others a progressive partici- 
pation in local government," and for tropical Africa a "system of 
control established by agreement under the League of Nations," 
which would "take into account the wishes of the peoples," would 
safeguard the native tribes in the ownership of the soil, and "devote 
all revenues to the well-being and development of the colonies them- 
selves." 

In other ways, the memorandum grounded its economic propo- 
sitions on the principle of stripping international relations of priv- 
ilege, economic friction and oppression. It ranged labor 



70 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

Against punitive indemnities. 

Against the economic boycott of any country. 

Against the capitalistic exploitation or militarization of the 
natives of any colony or dependency. 

Against the "alliance between the military imperialists and fiscal 
protectionists in any country whatsoever" as "a serious danger to the 
prosperity of the masses of the people" and "a grave menace to 
peace." 

Constructively, labor expressed itself: 

For the freedom of "the main lines of marine connection" with- 
out hindrance to vessels of all nations under the League. 

For the "open door without hostile discrimination against for- 
eign countries." 

For the conservation by each nation, of "its own supply of food- 
stuffs and raw materials, for its own people" along with the "de- 
velopment of its resources for the benefit of the world." 

For (in view of the world-wide shortages caused by the war) a 
systematic arrangement, on an international basis, for the allocation 
and conveyance of the available exportable surpluses "to the differ- 
ent countries, in proportion not to their purchasing powers, but to 
their several pressing needs," coupled with government control, 
within each country, in order to "secure their appropriation not in 
a competitive market mainly to the richer classes in proportion to 
their means but systematically to meet the most urgent needs of the 
whole community." 

For (in view of the discharge of millions of munition workers 
and the demobilization of millions of soldiers) government projects 
to prevent the flinging of "a large part of the wage-earning popula- 
tion into all the miseries of unemployment," "as much the result of 
government neglect as is any epidemic disease." 

For international agreement "for the enforcement in all countries 
of the legislation on factory conditions, a maximum eight-hour day, 
the prevention of 'sweating' and unhealthy trades, necessary to pro- 
tect the workers against exploitation and oppression, and the pro- 
hibition of night work by women and children." 

For the restoration of devastated areas, as "one of the most im- 
perative duties of all countries immediately peace is declared," for 
the "assessment and distribution of the compensation so far as con- 
tributed by any international fund under the direction of an inter- 
national commission," and for a restoration not limited "to compen- 
sation for public buildings, capitalist undertakings and material prop- 
erty proved to be destroyed or damaged," but "extended to setting 
up the wage earners and peasants themselves in homes and em- 
ployment." 

For the setting up of a court of claims and accusations which 
should investigate allegations of "cruelty, oppression, violence and 
theft against individual victims, for which no justification can be 



ALLIED LABOR'S WAR AIMS 71 

found in the ordinary usages of war"; and should summon persons 
and governments before it and award damages. Particular atten- 
tion was drawn to the loss of life and property of merchant seamen 
and other non-combatants, including women and children, resulting 
from this inhuman conduct. 

Thus, at every point, labor was for giving human content to 
the "safety" of democracy after the war. It was not a dynastic 
map, nor a destiny map, nor a trade map, but a peoples' map that 
it proposed should be engrossed at the Peace Conference. 

Repeatedly, in the course of the war — whether before Amer- 
ica's entrance, at the time of the President's first request to the 
Allies for a statement of war aims, or in 1918 in the exchanges as 
to Japanese intervention in Siberia — Americans who have access 
to the British press have caught the note of comprehension and 
democratic sympathy with the American viewpoint in such journals 
as the Manchester Guardian. Here is what the Manchester Guard- 
ian, said of the war aims of the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist 
Conference of February, 1918: 

. . . Above all and through all runs the demand, not as a sequel 
in the conclusion of peace, but as an essential part of the terms of 
peace, for the establishment of an effective League of Nations, for 
disarmament, for the substitution of international law for force, and, 
as a corollary of these things, for open diplomacy, the publication of 
all treaties, the effective control of foreign affairs by popularly 
elected bodies. It follows, of course, that if governments are to rest 
upon consent and foreign affairs are to be controlled by popularly 
elected bodies, there will be no room left for the autocracies, and that 
conclusion is plainly drawn. It is indeed designed that the whole of 
the belligerent nations shall form part of the League of Nations, and 
no conditions of entry are in terms imposed. But no nation could 
enter a league with such functions and such a constitution which had 
not pretty effectively democratized itself — more effectively indeed, as 
regards control of foreign affairs, than has our own country up to 
the present moment. The first object of such a league is declared 
to be the one laid down by President Wilson for his own people, "to 
make the world safe for democracy," and it is to a democratic 
world, and a democratic world only, that the conference looks for 
the mighty step forward in the adjustment of human affairs which 
is necessary as the sequel to this war if worse, and much worse, is 
not to befall us in the days to come. 

This is the answer of democracy to autocracy, to-day so seem- 
ingly triumphant, and it is surely a notable one. It is, be it ob- 
served, the answer not of British democracy alone, but of the labor 
forces of the Allied nations. The governments have so far failed 
to draw up a common programme of war aims; the conference has 
done it for them. All the world can now know the policy of Allied 



72 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

labor, and labor among the central powers may usefully ponder it. 
What will it say? That we have yet to learn, and nothing must 
stand in the way of our learning it. For in truth it is on the accord 
of the democracies far more than on that of their governments for 
the time being that the future depends. Indeed, it may yet be that 
only through the effective accord of the peoples can peace be reached 
at all. It is for the peoples, therefore, to assert themselves, our own 
people, the French and Italian peoples, the German and Austrian 
peoples. What hope, will it be said, is there of that? How is a 
triumphant militarism, at this very moment rich with spoil, to be 
crushed and broken? Perhaps the triumph is pretty far from being 
as complete as it seems; perhaps even its leaders have something 
more than a suspicion that their power rests on no very stable base, 
and that unless they in their turn can offer their people something 
more than conquest, can at least assure them peace, there may be 
limits to the endurance of the most patient. But in order that the 
peoples in those countries may have some stable ground to go upon, 
in order that they may know what for them peace would mean, it is 
essential that the terms should be clearly stated, and stated col- 
lectively. That is what the inter-Allied conference has done so far 
as labor is concerned. It is well done, and the Allied government? 
would be well advised speedily to follow suit. When it is fully 
known to the German people that peace means not subjection but lib' 
erty, there is no saying what useful transformations may not follow. 

Now it may be said that the Manchester Guardian is a liberal 
paper, which held a critical attitude towards not a few of the 
activities of the British War Cabinet. Let us turn, therefore, to 
the editorial page of the London Times, the chief of the North- 
cliff e press. On February 25, the Times published the war-aims 
memorandum of the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conference 
in full, and described the memorandum as in the main "sound and 
sensible." Under the heading, A Democratic Challenge, the Times 
said in its leading editorial: 

The organizers of the Allied Labour-Socialist Conference of last 
week have every right to congratulate themselves on the result. 
In the first place they secured agreement, which is in itself no small 
triumph ; and, in the second place, they did so, not by watering down 
the British labor memorandum to a few colorless generalities, but 
rather by amplifying and strengthening it. The result is a very 
long, detailed and definite statement of war aims and peace terms. 
The weakest part is the preamble, taken from a resolution adopted at 
a socialist conference held three years ago, and implying that the 
war is due to general causes and especially to the "capitalist" order 
of society. . . . 

Readers who approve of some parts of the statement and object 
to others, must remember that it is addressed primarily to the labor 



ALLIED LABOR'S WAR AIMS 73 

socialists of enemy countries, and that it speaks a language to which 
they are accustomed. It is not the voice of the nation ; it represents 
a point of view, and if it occasionally ascends into a somewhat nebu- 
lous atmosphere, that does not weaken the firm and positive stand 
taken on essential matters. As a whole, it offers far more ground 
for satisfaction than for objection. 

The differences between the new international statement and the 
British memorandum adopted in December are considerable and 
important. As we hav.e said, the earlier draft has been amplified and 
strengthened in detail and its logical sequence has been much im- 
proved. The first important difference is the prominent place as- 
signed to the project of a League of Nations. That is a project 
which has been put forward by President Wilson and by many other 
persons, but it has not, so far as we know, been previously laid down 
so explicitly and in so much detail. It is postulated as the future 
guardian of democracy and the key to the problem of preventing 
war forever. Further, it is to 'be the agency by which the principle 
of self-determination for nations is to be realized. It is forcibly 
urged that the right of self-determination would be valueless if it 
were at the mercy of fresh violation, and therefore that it must be 
protected by a super-national authority, which only the proposed 
league can supply. But, more than that, it is contended that the 
establishment of an effective super-national authority implies the 
complete democratization of all countries, with the abolition of auto- 
cratic powers and other features of the present or past politics of 
nations. It follows that if self-determination and the prevention of 
future wars depend on the establishment of a League of Nations 
wielding effective authority, and if this in turn involves complete 
democratization of the nations adhering to it, then it is evident that 
the first step towards the realization of the ideals set out is democ- 
ratization. This means, when applied to the actual conditions before 
us, either that Germany must first be thoroughly democratized be- 
fore any progress can be made, or that the League of Nations, 
formed without her, must be prepared to compel her compliance by 
force of arms. We agree. A League of Nations would be a farce 
with Germany as she is, ruled by a single will, cherishing boundless 
ambitions, restrained by no scruples, bound by no compact, owning 
no law but necessity, and armed to the teeth. . . . 



CHAPTER X 

two-edged: sword or ploughshare 

Turn now, from platform to procedure. In the first place, 
Allied labor believed the principles in its platform were worth 
fighting for. That was the first edge of the labor blade. Against 
the Prussian embodiment of conquest, of punitive indemnities and 
subjugated peoples, they would have been found resisting with the 
last ounce of blood and brawn, had other elements in the com- 
munity been willing to sacrifice the East for the West, and throw 
the war at cost of the principles for which they were fighting. In 
this sense, we have the paradox that by their peace aims, the work- 
ers made it essentially their war. In February, 191 5, a conference 
of Socialist and Labour Parties of the Allied nations had recited 
the wrongs to Belgium and Poland and declared that "throughout 
all Europe from Alsace-Lorraine to the Balkans, those populations 
that have been annexed by force shall receive the right freely to 
dispose of themselves." Three years to a month later, the Inter-Allied 
Labour and Socialist Conference in London reaffirmed that labor 
was "inflexibly resolved to fight until victory is achieved to accom- 
plish their task of liberation." 

Vorwdrts did not make the mistake of those reactionaries who 
attacked Henderson as a defeatist. Vorwdrts charged that he 
"preaches the aim of reconciliation, but does so raising the fist of 
enduring readiness for war." Renaudel, the French majority leader, 
was quoted as saying in the spring of 19 18 that it brooked little 
should Germany yield the provinces wrested from France in 1870 
if half a dozen new Alsace-Lorraines were set up in the East. Said 
Vandervelde at London, in words which forecast the impending 
German drive: 

We are meeting in very serious times. At the time this confer- 
ence assembled, it was stated in the newspapers that all the forces 
of imperial Germany were to be thrown against Paris. On that very 
day we also learned that the Russian revolution, overcome by the 
weight of its own miseries, and its own mistakes, had resigned itself 
to the signing of peace with the Hapsburgs and the Hohenzollerns. 
We cannot ignore what the Bolshevikists have done to discredit 
their own country and international socialism, but we must not for- 

74 



TWO-EDGED: SWORD OR PLOUGHSHARE 75 

get, on the other hand, what the Russian revolution has done for 
internationalism and socialism. In the splendor of its first triumph, 
it proclaimed those principles which, adopted by President Wilson, 
will form the basis of the democratic peace of to-morrow. 

But we have more to do than to congratulate ourselves on the 
achievement of the Russian revolution; we must also draw lessons 
from its failures. The great lesson is that democracy was commit- 
ting an irretrievable mistake by throwing away its arms before im- 
perialism had been defeated. Whilst holding the olive branch in one 
hand, we have to hold the sword in the other. We have been forced 
to take up the sword as the only means of defense. We must not 
forget that if we are able to assemble here, it is because the British 
navy holds the seas, and the millions of allied soldiers maintain the 
line. If the German offensive were to succeed the resolutions we 
pass would be mere "scraps of paper" and of no more value than 
the bank notes of the Russian state bank. If our soldiers are able 
to throw back the attack with which we are threatened, we shall 
have the glorious opportunity of taking a leading part in the effort 
that can then be made to attain a just and democratic peace. 

To Vandervelde, beside him on the platform, Ramsay Mac- 
Donald said in his speech at Nottingham in January: 

We can assure him that however we may differ in some things, 
there is no difference between him and us regarding national self- 
determination ; no difference between him and us that Belgium must 
be free and independent. If we made peace to-day without that, 
peace would be false, and in two or three years militarism would 
raise its head more devilish than ever before. 

This edge of the British- Allied labor blade was driven home in 
April, 19 18, as part of the general marshaling of Allied arms to 
meet the shock of the German drive toward Amiens and Paris. The 
executive committee of the British Labour Party that month passed 
this resolution: 

Resolved, That the National Executive of the Labour Party places 
on record its deep sense of gratitude for, and admiration of, the 
heroic resistance offered by our armies in the field to the terrible 
onslaughts of the enemy during the recent offensive. Such magnifi- 
cent courage and resolution — so consistent with the best British tra- 
ditions — imposes an imperative obligation upon all sections of the 
country to assist by their skill, energy or substance, to carry on the 
great work of liberation in which our armies are engaged in order 
that our joint efforts may eventually result in the final overthrow 
of militarism and secure for the world a lasting and democratic peace. 

With the development of implements of warfare, from cross- 
bow to gunpowder, from gunpowder to high explosives, to airplanes 



76 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

and submarines, it is not strange that modern labor should have set 
out to improve upon the ancient anvils on which swords were labori- 
ously pounded into ploughshares, and to fashion an implement 
which could serve both purposes at once; two-edged: sword or 
ploughshare. 

The Inter- Allied labor meeting in 19 15 had resolved to resist 

any attempt to transform this defensive war into a war of conquest, 
which would only prepare fresh conflicts, create new grievances and 
subject various peoples more than ever to the double plague of 
armaments and wars. 

In the three years intervening, the workers had marked the grasp- 
ing of French imperialists after the left bank of the Rhine; they 
had learned of the claims of Italy for the East shore of the 
Adriatic, for Smyrna and what not; they had learned, through the 
Russian exposures, of the secret treaties for the parcelling out of 
the Turkish Empire, and underlined not only the booty for the 
Mediterranean Allies and the Czar, but those paragraphs where 
"Great Britain obtains"; they had seen the jingo press from Allied 
countries circulated in Germany by Pan-Germans, as part of the 
junker propaganda to convince the German people that theirs was 
a war against annihilation. 

So in 19 1 8 the Allied workers did more than reaffirm their 
resolve to resist the transformation of a defensive war into a war 
of conquest. They "condemned the aims of conquest of Italian 
imperialists," they "condemned the imperialist aims of govern- 
ments and capitalists who would make of . . . territories now 
dominated by the Turkish hordes merely instruments either of 
exploitation or militarism"; they disclaimed any intention to "pur- 
sue the political and economic crushing of Germany"; they dis- 
claimed as a war aim "dismemberment of Austria-Hungary or its 
deprivation of economic access to the sea"; declared against "all 
the projects now being prepared by imperialists and capitalists, not 
in any one country but in most countries," for an economic "war 
after the war." But they did more than resist and denounce; they 
came forward with a series of affirmative proposals, whose reason- 
ableness and freedom from imperialistic taint they believed must 
awaken response from such chords of democratic feeling as might 
persist in Central Europe. They set out to press for a joint state- 
ment from the Allied governments to match the statement British 
labor had elicited from the Premier and to match the 14 points 
through which President Wilson had not only spoken for the United 
States, but voiced the democratic aspirations of inarticulate forces 
for democracy among all the Allies. More, pending such a joint 



TWO-EDGED: SWORD OR PLOUGHSHARE 77 

pronouncement on the part of the Allied governments, they forged 
their labor weapon to the same end, and in the British labor offen- 
sive, we had a two-edged implement whose blade clove at once for 
war and peace. 

To labor's mind, the principles in their platform were not only- 
worth fighting for; they were worth pressing home with all the 
moral and political force they could muster. By the issuance of 
the Inter-Allied platform they sought to turn the hard pan of Ger- 
man official control and reach the soil of working class opinion 
beneath. It was the proposal of an interbelligerent labor meeting, 
safeguarded, while the war was on, that was the ploughshare edge 
of their blade. 

The New Republic in publishing the London memorandum in 
full as a supplement on March 23, 19 18, put the tactic in a nut- 
shell: 

Just as the labor and socialist parties of the western Allies have 
succeeded, where their governments have failed, in reaching a 
common statement of war aims, so the labor and socialist parties 
of the whole world may reach a similar agreement in spite of the 
chasm which still divides the belligerent governments. 

But here, again, we can turn to outside English witnesses of 
standing. At the opening of the London Conference (February, 
1918) the London Times chronicled the British labor offensive in 
all but the same words as employed in Chapter II, which at the 
time they were published in The Survey (March 9, 1918) were de- 
nounced in some quarters in America as a perversion of the facts. 
The Times began: 

The present conference of labor and Socialist parties represent- 
ing the Allied countries is evidently guided by skilful hands. They 
have gone to work in a methodical and purposeful way, very dif- 
ferent from the crude and impetuous attempt to hold a general in- 
ternational meeting at Stockholm last summer. It is clear now that 
if the meeting then proposed had been held it would have been a 
Babel of discordant voices expressing irreconcilable views in diverse 
tongues and with extreme heat. . . . The project fell through at 
the outset because no preliminary agreement could be reached in 
this country among the intended delegates. The problem of over- 
coming this initial difficulty has occupied the best heads among them 
during the ensuing six months, and substantial progress has been 
made along a very laborious road. . . . 

Of the whole procedure, the Manchester Guardian of February 
25 said: 



78 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

It is a sound and practical program and it is to be hoped that 
none of the Allied governments will raise any objection to its being 
carried out. It ought, on the contrary, to be welcomed by all. 

While the conference was on, the London Daily News held that 

the importance of the agreement there is every prospect of attain- 
ing at the present conference can hardly be over-rated. . . . 

There are certain services to the world which only democracy 
can render. No appeal, no warning, no menace from the British 
government, or the French, or even the American, will detach a 
single German democrat from his allegiance to the Kaiser. If Ger- 
man democracy is to be kept true, or made true, to democratic prin- 
ciple, it must be by the establishment of a frank understanding with 
the democracies of England and Italy and America and France. 
If Russia is to be saved even yet from the cataclysmic disasters that 
threaten her, it can only be as she establishes with western democ- 
racy relations she will never countenance with western governments. 

In discussing the project of an international labor conference, 
the London Times called attention to points which "must be given 
consideration," such as that enemy labor might "return specious 
answers" which would have to be "carefully scrutinized before going 
further." Nonetheless, this is what The Times said of the pro- 
cedure which was determined upon and which, if this British journal 
closely identified with the administration found worth fair discus- 
sion, would seem at least to have warranted a fair hearing from 
American labor bodies: 

Let us, therefore, suppose again that the Allied labor declaration 
of war aims is brought to the notice of the corresponding bodies in 
the enemy countries. The first object is to extract an answer from 
them which will show their real position, and if that agrees in any 
measure with the Allied labor views, then to proceed further with 
negotiations and attempt the international meeting. The eventual 
object appears to be to convince the enemy labor representatives 
that they have been deceived by their own government and that no 
intention of crushing or ruining them is cherished on this side ; that 
what we are fighting against is German "militarism" and the gospel 
of force which it represents. 

That is a fair and proper object which has been pursued by 
President Wilson and others; and not only have the labor organiza- 
tions a right to pursue it too, but they can in some respects do so 
more effectively than statesmen or governments. . . . 

Arthur Henderson, in speaking at the closing luncheon at Lon- 
don, said: 



TWO-EDGED: SWORD OR PLOUGHSHARE 79 

In spite of cajolery and misrepresentation, we say to our critics: 
After nearly four years of ruthless slaughter and destruction, in 
which humanity is slowly bleeding to death, it is time that the mili- 
tary effort was seriously supplemented — not superseded or supplanted, 
but seriously supplemented — by the pressure of the moral and the 
political weapon. It appears to us that the interests of all the na- 
tions involved in the struggle and the interests of humanity as a 
whole render it imperative that the war should cease the moment the 
conditions of a world-peace are assured. 

As I understand the position of Allied labor, it is this: We seek 
a victory; but we do not seek a victory of a militarist or diplomatic 
nature. We seek a triumph for great principles and noble ideals. 
We are not influenced by imperialist ambitions or selfish national in- 
terests. We seek a victory ; but it must be a victory for international 
moral and spiritual forces, finding its expression in a peace based 
upon the inalienable rights of common humanity. By the acceptance 
of the amended war aims, the Inter-Allied Conference has declared 
that, whilst we are unprepared to continue the conflict for an im- 
perialistic peace for the Allies, neither would we consent to the ac- 
ceptance of terms which would mean a German militarist peace. We 
have made our declarations of policy in good faith, repudiating all 
deceit and cunning. We shall refuse to countenance any attempt by 
either group of belligerents to defeat the principles for which we 
stand. We shall oppose any unscrupulous application of these prin- 
ciples to any particular cases in which any country may be inter- 
ested. We shall continue to press our case against all opposition, 
whether it be internal or external, in order that we may eventually 
secure that constructive, democratic peace so essential to social and 
economic progress the world over. 

In order to secure such a peace we are ready to cooperate on 
the principles of conciliation with all elements, whether they be 
Allied, neutral, or amongst the belligerent peoples. All peoples we 
are prepared to cooperate with who are inspired by principles iden- 
tical with those upon which our peace proposals are based. Doubt- 
less we shall again be charged with pacifism, and told that we are 
playing the game of the enemy. Let me say emphatically that 
though we are not seeking exclusively a French peace, an Italian 
peace, or a British peace, we are all of us, I believe, much more 
strongly opposed to a German peace. Nor do we want "peace at any 
price." 

We must do everything in our power to hold an international con- 
ference under proper conditions, and as speedily as circumstances 
will permit. We must use that international conference as an op- 
portunity for removing every obstacle that stands in the way of an 
honorable, just, world-settlement. 

One of the most consistent criticisms leveled at Allied diplomacy 
had been that of Andre Cheradame, who from an angle very differ- 
ent from that of labor, charged it with ignoring the social and 



80 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

psychological factors in the common assault upon an enemy that 
has used both. Among national spokesmen, it remained for Wood- 
row Wilson to link military and political offensives. In a sense his 
state papers, after the United States entered the war, fall into two 
groups — those in which he made ringing call to arms against Prus- 
sian aggression, and those in which he set forth the principles which 
"would be our own in the final settlement." To a remarkable 
degree the two were blended in his address at Baltimore in April, 
19 18, on the first anniversary of America's entry into the war; and 
its two-edged blade afforded a master type of the new statesman- 
ship. In this address he yielded no ground to those who had crit- 
icized his moral and political offensive. Still less did he yield 
ground to the German thrust at Amiens. Rather, he accepted the 
latter challenge and threw it back. In doing so, he made clear 
that instead of confusing the issue, his enunciation of the fourteen 
points and the four, and the other steps in his moral and political 
offensive, grounded as that was on his remarkable understanding of 
the psychology of democracy, had made the issue clear as never 
before. 

As one edge of his blade, we find him throwing over the mo- 
tivation of hate — that recourse of the German autocrats which had 
found an echo from not a few of Our own lesser spokesmen. "I 
should be ashamed," he said, "in the presence of affairs so grave, 
so fraught with the destinies of mankind throughout all the world, 
to speak with truculence, to use the weak language of hatred or 
vindictive purpose." Rather, his was an appeal to reason. His 
basic confidence lay in the ability of thinking Americans to make 
up their minds. "The man who knows least," he said, "can now 
see plainly how the cause of justice stands, and what imperishable 
thing he is asked to invest in." He reviewed the exchanges which 
had helped bring this education about and, in doing so, reaffirmed 
the unimperialistic principles for which America stood — in a way 
which at the time may be said to have been an answer to such 
organs as the Giornale d'ltalia, which had doggedly clung to the 
commitments by the Allies to Italy; and an answer to the London 
Globe, which before the ink was fairly dry on the statements put 
out by Premier Lloyd George and President Wilson at New Year's, 
urged their recall on the ground, apparently, that German conquests 
in the East should be eyed for an eye with prospect of counter 
conquests. 

As against those who thus pinned their faith on dark threats 
of punishment as means to weaken enemy resistance and to build 
up the fighting spirit at home, President Wilson reaffirmed his con- 
trary principles and alternative procedure; 



TWO-EDGED: SWORD OR PLOUGHSHARE 81 

... I have sought to learn the objects Germany has in this war 
from the mouths of her own spokesmen, and to deal as frankly with 
them as I wished them to deal with me. . . . 

We have ourselves proposed no injustice, no aggression. We 
are ready, whenever the final reckoning is made, to be just to the 
German people, deal fairly with the German power, as with all 
others. There can be no difference between peoples in the final 
judgment, if it is indeed to be a righteous judgment. To propose 
anything but justice, even-handed and dispassionate justice, to Ger- 
many at any time, whatever the outcome of the war, would be to 
renounce and dishonor our own cause, for we ask nothing that we 
are not willing to accord. 

He went further and reopened the door which the German 
commanders in Russia clanged shut "when we proposed such a 
peace:" 

For myself, I am ready, ready still, ready even now, to discuss 
a fair and just and honest peace at any time that it is sincerely 
purposed — a peace in which the strong and the weak shall fare 
alike. 

Here, then, were the main elements in President Wilson's moral 
and political offensive. Here, also, they became basic elements in 
his military offensive, the other edge of his blade. And in making 
this clear he once more spoke over the heads of the German general 
staff to the civilians of the Central Empires at the same time that 
he mustered the American civilian soldiers afresh to their task: 

It has been with this thought that I have sought to learn from 
those who spoke for Germany whether it was justice or dominion 
and the execution of their own will upon the other nations of the 
world that the German leaders were seeking. They have answered — ■ 
answered in unmistakable terms. They have avowed that it was 
not justice, but dominion and the unhindered execution of their own 
will. The avowal has not come from Germany's statesmen. It has 
come from her military leaders, who are her real rulers. 

How these "military masters" overrode the German civilian 
delegates at Brest-Litovsk, how in Russia, in Finland, in Ukraine 
and Rumania they sought to "impose their power and exploit every- 
thing for their own use and aggrandizement," how they would do 
the same thing on the western front if they had the chance, how 
they might be willing to promote a false peace in the West if they 
could have free hand in making the Slavic lands, the Baltic penin- 
sula and Turkey "subject to their will and ambition, and build 
upon that dominion an empire of force upon which they fancy that 



82 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

they can then erect an empire of gain and commercial supremacy," 
were set forth by President Wilson as so many elements in a pro- 
gram in which "our ideals of justice and humanity and liberty, the 
principle of free self-determination of nations, upon which all the 
modern world insists, can play no part." 

That program once carried out, America and all who care or 
dare to stand with her must arm and prepare themselves to contest 
the mastery of the world — a mastery in which the rights of com- 
mon men, the rights of women and of all who are weak, must for 
the time being be trodden under foot and disregarded and the old, 
age-long struggle for freedom and right begin again at its beginning. 

And in conclusion he said: 

. . . Germany has once more said that force, and force alone, 
shall decide whether justice and peace shall reign in the affairs of 
men, whether right as America conceives it or dominion as she con- 
ceives it shall determine the destinies of mankind. There is, there- 
fore, but one response possible from us : Force, force to the utmost, 
force without stint or limit, the righteous and triumphant force 
which shall make right the law of the world and cast every selfish 
dominion down in the dust. 

Operating in the workaday field, rather than in that of official 
statesmanship, British labor was employing a formula kindred to 
that of the American President. There has been a great deal of 
discussion of morale. Much of it has had that naive ring to it with 
which some people discuss welfare work as a solution of the labor 
problem. British workers did not take stock in cigarettes or soup- 
kitchens or hate as a method of building up morale either among 
soldiers or citizens. They were out for justice — justice first of all 
in their own war aims. Rightly or wrongly, they believed that if 
(in 19 1 7) the war aims given out in December had been given 
out in May, there would have been a good chance that the pro- 
visional government under Kerensky would not have gone down 
or the cave-in on the Russian front resulted. They believed that 
the same type of mind which fell short there and which expressed 
itself in the secret treaties would never weaken the bonds which 
held the German working people in leash to their overlords. "How," 
they asked, a are you to counter the German imperialists at home 
if Allied labor does not make clear, by forcing a united unimperial- 
istic statement of war aims from the Allies, that the German work- 
ing-classes will not be opening the way to the destruction of Ger- 
many if they revolt, or threaten to do so; how if Allied labor does 
not make clear that it can and will hold its governments to this 



TWO-EDGED: SWORD OR PLOUGHSHARE 83 

course; how if it does not endeavor to get these things across to the 
German socialists?" 

In his Washington's Birthday address on February 22, 19 18, 
Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, 
was quoted as saying: 

Shall we meet in council with these men [German labor], gain- 
ing from us our confidence, swerving us from the path of duty, try- 
ing to influence us that the governments of these democracies are, 
after all, only capitalistic ? I have said, and I say in the name of the 
American labor movement: "You can't talk peace with us now. 
Either you smash your autocracy, or, by the gods, we will smash it 
for you. Before you talk peace terms, get back from France, get 
back from Belgium, into Germany, and then we will talk peace." 

This left the British labor leaders cold. They believed them- 
selves at work on a procedure which would do more than swash- 
buckling to achieve the very ends Gompers desired. They 
understood the American feeling, as they went through it what 
seemed to them ages before. They were scarcely of a temper to 
wait inactive while American labor should go through a 
similar tuition. Their own experience with the grapples of govern- 
ment control in war-time had given them a notion of the Prussian 
hold upon the German workers. British labor was freer — and pro- 
posed to use its fuller measure of freedom so that the less free 
might act in turn. You heard among them little of atrocities linked 
with the civilian common soldiers who now made up the bulk of the 
German armies. That motive, fanned too hard earlier in the war, 
had burned itself out. They thought the men the British were 
fighting against were much like themselves, caught in the grip of 
war, neither fiends nor made of other clay. So long as the German 
workers were held by powers greater than themselves to an assault 
upon democracy and were thrown at the western workers, so long 
would these shoot and be shot. 

The British was the antithesis of the Russian method of bring- 
ing about a change. They did not propose to down tools or down 
arms at home as the method of bringing the . German workers 
around. They believed that the German armies would be in Paris 
and in London quick enough if the French and English workers 
downed tools or arms. The Russian developments confirmed them 
in this belief. But, on the other hand, they were equally of the 
belief that the English and French armies would make for Berlin 
if the German workers revolted. So, therefore, they were engaged 
in the slow process of forcing the Allied governments to come out 
singly and unitedly in a statement for an unimperialistic settle- 



84 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

ment, in the process of showing that the Allied working classes had 
enough strength to hold them to it, and in the process of getting 
word of these things through to the German workers in a way 
which would carry conviction. 

Their first objective was to get unanimity among the great Brit- 
ish labor organizations. That was reached in December, 191 7. 

Their second objective was to get unanimity among the labor 
and socialist groups among the Allies. That was reached in Feb- 
ruary, 1918. 

Their third objective was to promote the convincing espousal 
by the organized German workers of those principles of a people's 
peace they had made their own. On that hung their fourth ob- 
jective — to get unanimity among the workers of all Europe on a 
charter of democracy embodying those principles which they might 
press as the basis for an enduring settlement of the war; a war 
which, because of those principles, they supported. 

That was the British labor sword — or ploughshare, as you will. 



CHAPTER XI 

ANOTHER ENGLISH ROUND TABLE 

Ramsay MacDonald was speaking. Before him was a great 
well of pipe smoke through which you could see, row upon row, 
the upturned faces of broad-cheeked British labor men. Above 
them in a horseshoe was a gallery of cheering spectators. He stood 
on a drop-balcony at the end, which was like the frog of the horse- 
shoe — at a narrow table at which sat a dozen men facing the body 
of the hall. There was the Belgian minister of Intendence ; there 
was a former member of the British War Cabinet; there was the 
unrecognized ambassador of the latest Russian government; there 
were two members of the French parliament; and several times that 
number of English commoners. They were all labor men or social- 
ists. 

"See us here," MacDonald was saying, and he brought down the 
house, "shoulder to shoulder; disagreeing; comrades in our dis- 
agreements. And when you think that the extension to this table 
by a few feet, the addition to these chairs by half a dozen, is all 
that it means to bring the International together, in the name of 
God, let us think of this." 

In these phrases, at the first evening meeting at Nottingham, 
he gave delegates to the Labour Party convention a picture which 
stuck in their minds — which was referred to again and again in the 
discussions of the next three days. He had taken his fellow mem- 
bers in the executive of the British Labour Party and the fraternal 
delegates sitting at the speakers' table beside them, and turned 
them into what the exhibit experts call a three-dimension piece. 
He visualized in the chairs, the table, the men beside it, something 
undreamed of in the older philosophies of war, but something cher- 
ished and familiar to the gospel of working class brotherhood, as 
spoken in a score of tongues since the days of Karl Marx. He 
visualized an international labor conference in the midst of war, 
threshing out their differences either to agreement or to a final 
unbridged cleavage; an international labor conference at the time 
of the settlement of the war, whether it were near or far, standing 
out for a workers' peace. 

"We do not want a peace celebrated by sobs," he went on, 

85 



86 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

"but a peace with democratic songs, served by democratic effort, 
built up by democratic principles ; a peace maintained by democratic 
vigilance. ... It is your duty to speak to those silent to maintain 
silence no longer, to come together, to discuss and settle difficul- 
ties." 

There were two vacant ends to that Nottingham table. The 
absentees at one end were, of course, any representatives of the 
workers of Germany and Austria; although in the course of the 
evening a young woman spoke for the rebel Czech element, and 
hailed the British workers' message to Russia as kindred to the 
yearnings of their "comrades in Bohemia." Incidentally she brought 
news of a resolution in favor of Czecho-Slovak independence adopted 
at a congress of all Czech deputies from Bohemia, Moravia and 
Silesia, held at Prague in January, which had been entirely sup- 
pressed by the Austrian censor. 

The absentees at the other end of the table were those of the 
United States. Just as the British delegates felt that war-time 
isolation and distance were factors which stood in the way of any 
approach to the working classes of the Central Empires, so they felt, 
a month later, that these same obstacles were factors in the absence 
of American labor alongside the Belgian, French, Italian and other 
Allied labor groups who made common cause with them at their 
London conference in February. 

At that first evening at Nottingham it was the fraternal dele- 
gates who spoke, and what they said was current evidence as to the 
various angles from which the different Allied labor and socialist 
groups approached their common action. 

The first speaker was Camille Huysmans, who represented an- 
other and earlier approach to the question of an international labor 
conference. Before the war he was secretary of the International 
Socialist Bureau at Brussels, and since, secretary of the Dutch- 
Scandinavian committee presided over by Ffjalmar Branting (the 
Swedish Socialist leader), which had promoted the Stockholm con- 
ferences. Huysmans' arrival in England was noted in some of the 
London papers by the publication of paragraphs describing him as 
pro-German and saying that he had gotten out of occupied Belgium 
on a German pass. The fact that at Nottingham he was in in- 
formal and frequent conference with Emile Vandervelde, member 
of the Belgian ministry which is known to have turned down 
repeated overtures for a separate peace, was perhaps sufficient indi- 
cation that, however much the two men had differed in policy, his 
sincerity commanded the respect of his fellow countrymen. 

Huysmans brought the greetings of the organizing committee 
of the Stockholm conference project, from the Socialists of Den- 



ANOTHER ENGLISH ROUND TABLE S7 

mark, Sweden, Norway and Holland and that part of the Russian 
social democracy which was associated with them. He is of the 
slender student type which we associate with what Englishmen call 
the "intellectuals" whether in socialist meetings or university halls. 
Above his glasses is a high, square forehead with black hair thrown 
back. A long, thin neck upholds his high-boned face. Even when, 
at the outset of his remarks, he raised a laugh by saying that he 
was especially happy to come from Stockholm because it was a 
"prohibited area," there was only a momentary relaxation of the 
sober tension of the man. "The fact that I am permitted to come 
to Great Britain," he went on, "is a mark of the confidence which 
your government has in me. I regret that your government has 
not so much confidence in you." In explaining the activities of the 
Stockholm committee he said (here and later, quotations are very 
largely from long hand notes) : 

My friends had the impression, and it was also the impression of 
a man who is a devoted friend of British democracy — M. Branting — 
that in the capitalist societies war organizations are like iron walls 
opposite each other, unable to crush one another, unable to have a 
real military result. If we had this conviction that militarism had 
no solution unaided in itself, then there was need of another way 
out. This conviction has been deepened by events. The German 
and Austrian armies from the east are now cast on the western 
front where the forces are, to a certain degree, again of the same 
strength. 

We were of the opinion that peace, if it were to be what the 
workers want, ought to be prepared by Socialists and labor parties 
across the war, and drawn up in such a manner that it would endure 
in the years to come. This policy was not understood. I will not 
defend myself against what has been said in leaflets and in papers. 
According to some we were sold to William the Second, and accord- 
ing to others we were the tools of Poincare. But the result of the 
contrary policy has been that Russia was pushed to the extreme left 
wing. We thought that if in the Entente countries there was a clear 
statement of war aims and a general agreement, labor at last in 
Germany and Austria would be compelled to act along the same 
lines as ourselves. 

I know that the moderate statements of the American and Eng- 
lish governments of late have made more impression on the people 
than the German and Austrian governments have acknowledged. My 
comrades charged me to explain these points and to say that we ap- 
prove the tactics proposed by British labor. 

In conclusion, Huysmans said: 

You have a great responsibility. It depends upon you whether the 
International shall be the first bridge across the world; whether a 



8S THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

new International shall come into being, greater, stronger, repre- 
senting all working classes, all peoples — an International which 
shall be across the world what your British Labour Party will be in 
your own country — the leading political power. 

The conference had shown its catholicity by inviting two Rus- 
sians — Litvinoff, the unrecognized Bolsheviki ambassador (latef 
arrested by the British but let go in return for the release of Brit- 
ish representatives in Russia), and Roubanovitch, the most impor- 
tant representative, then in Western Europe, of the old majority in 
the Constituent Assembly. Roubanovitch could not come, but the 
Bolsheviki had their spokesman — a stocky, heavy-set Russian Jew 
with the glasses of a student and the heavy jaw of a street speaker. 

"I come before you no longer to protest against the friendship 
of your government with ours as in the past," began Litvinoff, re- 
ferring to nine years under the Czar's regime he had spent in Lon- 
don as an exile. He went on: 

Rather I stand here as representative of a government the like of 
which the world has never seen. For the first time in history the 
proletariat has achieved supreme power in one of the largest states 
in the world. I pray you, comrades, to disabuse yourselves of the 
notion spread by the capitalist press that the Bolsheviki have usurped 
power like a band of thugs. In spite of sabotage by officials of the 
old government, they have carried through a revolution in the most 
approved way; and if they were a band of adventurers they would 
have been thrown out long ago. 

The establishment of the socialist administration may seem to 
you miraculous in view of the economic backwardness of Russia. 
That has rather made it possible. The capitalist classes had not at- 
tained full power or sway over the minds of the working classes. 
That explains the hold of the socialist movement in 1905. It was 
suppressed, but lived. Nor did the war dampen the revolutionary 
spirit. On the contrary, the capitalist hunger after Constantinople 
and Armenia increased the hatred of the working classes and in- 
creased the revolutionary energy. Theirs was a revolution not only 
against the Czar and his regime, but against allied capitalists. 

There was absolute silence among the upturned British faces 
before him, broken only now and then by hand-clapping here and 
there. "The Russian workers," he went on, "wanted peace as well 
as freedom and social reform. The Russian workers revolted not 
only against the inexcusable conduct of the war, but against the 
war itself." Here, at the end of each sentence, the crowd burst 
into cheers. He continued: 

They revolted against the war by revolting against its authors 
and advocates. In the March revolution the power passed into the 



ANOTHER ENGLISH ROUND TABLE 89 

hands of the working classes, but they allowed it to be held by the 
liberals. The Bolsheviki leaders were not in Russia. They were in 
Siberia, many of them. Others, like Lenine and Trotzky, were 
living abroad, unable to return owing to obstacles put in the way 
by the Entente governments. Therefore, the only leaders were the 
moderate socialists who openly advocated the cry of the people fof 
peace, for no annexations, no indemnities and the right of self- 
determination. But they did not carry these things out. 

So the masses came into the streets again. They had had an 
object lesson in depending upon moderate socialists. This resulted 
in putting new men into the cabinet, but these soon became the 
abject slaves of the liberals. The cry for peace became a mere 
phrase; a badly conceived offensive was attempted; the arrest of 
revolutionary leaders followed; the revolution began to fizzle out. 

Again the masses came into the streets. If the revolution had 
continued to drift in the same direction it would have given rise to 
the restoration of the monarchy. The laboring classes turned their 
eyes to the revolutionary party which had from the first stood for 
the complete power of the Soviets. On the night of November 7, the 
government under Kerensky was transferred to the Russian Con- 
gress of Soldiers' and Workers' Delegates. 

Has the experiment of the Russian revolutionary people justified 
itself? I mention one word — Brest-Litovsk. There, in that little 
barrack town, greater and more dramatic history has been made in 
three weeks than in three and a half years of war. 1 The princi- 
ples of no annexation and the right of the people to determine 
their lives have been asserted in such a way as to shatter the cap- 
italist war. Even if peace does not result from the negotiations, a 
revolution in Germany — and let me hope somewhere else ["Say it 
again," came a cry from the gallery] becomes one of the immediate 
possibilities. We have placed the German people face to face with 
their governments. Either they must accept the democratic princi- 
ple or continue war for territorial conquest. Will the German peo- 
ple accept that choice or spend themselves for their Junkers and 
capitalists to the end? I think there can only be one answer. Al- 
ready we hear the rumble of the storm coming from Austria and 
Hungary. 

But not only have the war aims of the Central Powers been ex- 
posed; the statesmen of the allied countries have been forced into 
the open, and surely these exposures must have their effect on the 
minds of the workers of the world. By the publication of their 
secret treaties-the governments have been given warning that their 
peoples will not put up with mere machinations. 

Internally, the land has been given to the peasants; factories and 
lands have been put in the hands of the workers; the apartments of 
the rich have been made to supply shelter for the homeless; local 

1 The negotiations at Brest-Litovsk dragged along till the first week in 
March, 1918; six weeks after this Nottingham meeting. 



9 o THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

government has been put in the hands of the Soviets; banking has 
been nationalized; the army has been democratized by establishing 
the principle of direct election of officers. The full right of self- 
determination has been granted to all nationalities. 

For a space of three months that is not a bad record. It is true 
it has not been wholly carried out into practice in the face of cap- 
italistic sabotage. It is also true that if reaction sets in these things 
will be swept away. Yet is it not true that the Bolsheviki have 
given a demonstration to the workers of the world? 

The Russian people are fighting an unequal fight, against the 
imperialists of all nations. They have begun a work for general 
peace, which alone they cannot finish. They will fail if they have 
not the response of the workers of all countries — those of the Cen- 
tral Powers as well as the Allies. I can only say to British labor: 
Speed up your pace. I hope and trust that you will not allow thou- 
sands and millions more men to be sacrificed. 

Thus the Maximalist ambassador was given a hearing; he was 
given applause. But his speech in a sense served to demark the 
Bolshevik program from that which the British and Allied speakers 
who followed him were engaged upon. They made it clear that 
neither in internal nor in international procedure did they see eye 
to eye with him. It was with other forces in the Russian political 
life that they were bound by the old ties; it was the Russian 
Minimalists who cabled acceptance of the war aims adopted at 
the London conference in February; and in June, it was the British 
Labour Party which gave the first hearing accorded Kerensky, fol- 
lowing his escape from Russia. 

The first of the allied speakers was Emile Vandervelde, chair- 
man of the old International Socialist Bureau, a holder of various 
portfolios in the Belgian ministry and an indefatigable worker for 
a hundred measures to build up the efficiency and morale of the 
Belgian army. He is stout, dignified, middle-aged, with a close- 
cropped black beard and a black necktie over a white shirt. He 
spoke in French with a ring and modulation to his voice which 
had been lacking in the preceding speaker; with restraint and re- 
serve power; a man who had argued in parliaments rather than 
on street corners. His emotion was less in the expression of his 
face than in the tone of his voice, which had a minor key and rose 
at one point to an impassioned appeal. How much was understood 
was problematical, but the spirit of the man won repeated applause. 

His translator afforded a similar contrast — short, stocky, the 
university man in hale middle life. This was Sidney Webb, the 
Fabian historian of British trade unionism — heavy-moustached, eye- 
browed and bearded, his dark hair shot with gray, contrasting 
with full-blooded, clean-shaven cheeks. He wore a black string 



ANOTHER ENGLISH ROUND TABLE 91 

to his eye glasses and would have passed anywhere for a banker. 
Vandervelde said: 

While listening to the Russian representative I could not help 
but think of the people of northern France and Belgium, of Serbia 
and the rest. I can understand the enthusiasm for peace in this 
fourth winter of war with privations and the wastage of youth. 
From the whole suffering mass of humanity goes up the cry for 
peace. ["Hear, hear," came from the hall.] The whole world asks 
for peace, but it asks — what peace? Shall it be a peace imposed 
upon us, or the peace we want — the peace of democracy? [Again 
the cry, "Hear, hear."] Peace without conquest is not necessarily 
peace without victory. In order to attain it democracy must win 
a double victory — against those who threaten us from abroad, and 
against those in our own country. The internal victory, which the 
Bolsheviki claim, was in no small measure due to those leaders of 
the revolution who preceded them. With us, this internal victory is 
in no small measure gained, due in the first place to the British prole- 
tariat, at whose instance a decisive and lucid reply was obtained 
from the prime minister of the greatest empire of the world, and 
found an echo three days later in the message of the president of 
the world's greatest republic. This memorable result will be defi- 
nitely consolidated on that day when the entente governments con- 
firm their unanimous desire in these respects by means of a col- 
lective declaration. 

It was not enough for the workers of the Allied nations to be 
in agreement on formulas. They must be unanimous in making 
their program triumph by all possible means, and this was the great 
task which would be imposed upon the proletariat of democratic 
nations in the near future. The moment approached when in mu- 
tual agreement they must make a solemn appeal to the proletariat 
on the other side of the trenches, asking them if they were on the 
side of social democracy against their masters or with their masters 
against social democracy. 

The future of the International depended upon the answer of the 
German proletariat and on them rested the possibility of common 
action against the autocracies of the mailed fist. Liebknecht had 
stood for these principles. The Belgian people had stood for them 
— and would remain so unflinchingly. With the aid of the social 
democracy of Germany, or without their aid, they were resolved 
to fight to the end for the people's rights. 

There followed the representatives of the two wings of the 
Socialist Party in France — the majority represented by its leader, 
Pierre Renaudel, follower of Jaures. Tall, heavy-set, he used his 
arms freely, pounded the table, spoke with a rising inflection, every 
phrase of which was an appeal, every point swelling into a torrent 



92 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

of words. What he said had also to be translated by Sidney Webb. 

As he had listened to the Russian delegate, he said, he at first 
could not help feeling a certain divergence of thought between 
them. The workers of all countries saw on all hands ruin and 
mourning accumulating, but knew they could not get out of their 
troubles by good will alone. It was their will to establish the 
rights of the people, the government of the people by themselves. 
They were still facing the dilemma of how. After an entire month 
the Russian delegation had been unable to get a single word out 
of the German negotiators at Brest in favor of the principles laid 
down by the Russians. The German armies had put their hands 
on Lithuania, Courland. The Russians said they wanted to have 
the whole people of these provinces consulted. The Germans said 
no. And so long as they said no, the war must go on. Like Van- 
dervelde, he could see no other way out — the German and Austrian 
people must do their duty and throw off militarism. The Russian 
revolution laid down principles which afforded a way out, but they 
must be given effect. General rights must be established on a 
proper basis through a league of nations and through disarmament. 
The various governments had come to support the principles that 
President Wilson had set forth. Thus the ideas had gone through- 
out the governments and peoples of the world. But upon the 
working classes of the world rested the responsibility to see to it 
that these principles were given effect. He did not want to speak 
of the ugly claim of the French imperialists for the left bank of 
the Rhine; the French Socialists had stood against it. But the 
same principle applied to Alsace-Lorraine. The question of the 
provinces taken from France could not be settled by force; it was 
not merely a territorial question, but a question of the reassertion 
of general rights. He contended that the people of Alsace-Lor- 
raine should give their view, and that disannexation must precede 
a plebiscite. 

Differences there were, he went on, but those differences could 
well be adjusted if submitted to the judgment of the world. Ger- 
many must submit disputed questions to that judgment. There 
and there only could true internationalism be grounded, on the lines 
of general rights and self-determination of the peoples concerned. 
This principle must not be a vase which could be shattered ; it must 
be a living thing, and the working classes must make it so. When the 
French socialists were prevented by their government from going 
to Stockholm — if their government had not been blind! — that is 
the message they would have given. 

Renaudel's address was broken by a burst of cheers. It had 
to do with the appearance of a well-recognized and popular figure 



ANOTHER ENGLISH ROUND TABLE 93 

— the belated representative of the French minority — Jean Lon- 
guet — grandson of Karl Marx, born in London and educated there, 
who has spent his life in France. He h tall, spare, a bit stooped, 
with a long black coat and a bush of wavy black hair suggestive 
of the artist or the musician. He spoke in fluent English and his 
instant ability to get into close contacts with his listeners, their 
evident friendship of long standing, made altogether clear what the 
British workers were searching for when they passed resolutions 
the following day for some simple international tongue! 

"This has been a year of great events," he said, "and the greatest 
of these has been the Russian revolution. It has been a year of 
trial, but a year which has given to the working class energy." To 
continue: 

We are told that the Stockholm meeting failed. Yet when the 
governments prevented the meeting from taking place, how could 
they say it failed ? The greatest testimony of its success is the activ- 
ity of the working class movement in all the countries. All the so- 
cialist parties are unanimous in their demand for a just and demo- 
cratic peace. All agree on the big principles which the Russian 
revolution has put forth. All are against conquest; all against plun- 
dering; all against killing of millions for it. The effect of their 
stand has been shown in the recent statements of statesmen who are 
now speaking the same words that socialists were denounced for as 
traitors a year ago. We want peace and the principle of self-deter- 
mination for each nationality. And this principle is one which must 
be applied by each to his own country. We believe that a wrong was 
committed against Alsace-Lorraine forty years ago. But a similar 
wrong would be committed if against the will of Alsace-Lorraine it 
should now be given over to such or such a country. We want 
reparation for the crime of forty-five years ago. But that repara- 
tion is a demand that the people of Alsace-Lorraine shall say 
what their future shall be. [The French minority believed the 
plebiscite should be under international control.] Never has there 
been so complete an understanding among the working classes as 
now. And the belief in an international union of working classes 
(after the war which was supposed to break it up) will be stronger 
and deeper than ever. 

The session was closed by Ramsay MacDonald. Slender, square- 
chinned, with a heavy black moustache, with tinges of gray in his 
shock of hair — his was the instant appeal of the natural orator. 
His voice is deep and musical, with range and variety of tone. His 
language is clear, with a lode of poetry, and his face has changing 
expression under emotional stress. 

He was glad that the first note of the conference had been a 
note of fraternity and internationalism. "We all want peace," he 



94 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

said. "We want no patched-up peace; we want no truce. We have 
never had anything else." Then it was that he gave as a perora- 
tion the paragraphs quoted at the outset of this chapter. 

STILL ANOTHER ROUND TABLE 

That first evening meeting at Nottingham brought into play 
some of the men who counted for most in the succeeding Inter-Allied 
Labour and Socialist conference in February, and who to-day figure 
largely in every international socialist gathering. Quotation has 
been made in earlier chapters of some of the speeches at the Feb- 
ruary meeting, but there the committee work was the important thing, 
and the sessions were behind closed doors. The British Labour 
Party conference in June at which its domestic platform was laid 
down, was also the occasion for exchanges from fraternal delegates. 
Troelstra, the Dutch socialist leader, who had been in communica- 
tion with the German socialists, was not permitted to come; but 
B ranting was there from Sweden and a yet more sensational visitor. 

Arthur Henderson is a clever stage manager and he scored when 
he suddenly popped Kerensky upon the platform. The delegates 
were stunned, enthusiastic, and a few of them were puzzled. The 
words passed: 

We don't want any government plant about this. 
What does he represent as fraternal delegate? 
Certain persons come and go. 

What lay in their mind was this: If Margaret Bondfield could 
not go to America, representing labor, nor Troelstra come from 
Holland, why could Kerensky enter England? Why did the gov- 
ernment give permission to one and not to another? Was it that" 
Kerensky was to be a decoy for government policy? 

Kerensky spoke for a couple of minutes and his "real appear- 
ance" was postponed to the next day. Meanwhile some of the 
delegates became "ugly." "Hear Litvinoff," chanted a woman 
socialist. Neither regular business nor the pleading of the chairman 
could overcome her musical drone. A tall, ascetic, young, class- 
conscious representative of the "left" kept precipitating himself 
from his seat, like a jack-in-the-box, with a "Mr. Chairman," "Point 
of order, Mr. Chairman." Ninety per cent of the delegates were 
growing annoyed at being held up by the group of obstructors. 

These are the moments for which Henderson reserves himself. 
If one object of oratory is to persuade and convince (just as an- 
other is to charm and inspire and stimulate) then in attaining his 
object Henderson is a powerful orator. He speaks without grace or 
beauty. But he speaks to the primary sense of justice, with a 



ANOTHER ENGLISH ROUND TABLE 9V 

weight of fact and reason, and directness, in a strong one-toned 
voice of mastery. In a convention of many voices and wide diver- 
gences among the extremists, he bears down and conquers opposi- 
tion and welds the welter into coherence and unity. Such a volume 
of power comes out of the man as the writer of these lines has 
felt only in two other public men. (Those two men were Roosevelt 
and Moody.) The clash of opinion about breaking the government 
truce had been sharp. 1 Some had believed it to be a move to lose 
the war, a pro- German device. Others had wished to break utterly 
with the government and force the labor members back into private 
life. Henderson had cleared the air with his deep, powerful voice, 
and his middle-of-the-way interpretation. And now the convention 
was in an uproar over Kerensky. About fifty delegates were excited 
and voluble because they thought that Kerensky was the advance 
agent of a Russian counter-revolution. Members of the British 
Socialist Party saw in his coming the beginnings of an attack on 
the world's first socialist republic. They were determined that he 
should not be heard. Then came Henderson and removed the 
whole discussion from the realm of heated feelings and party war- 
cries. He appealed to the sense of fair play and the right of free 
speech. And he reduced a shouting half hundred to five persons 
against 850 when the matter was put to the vote. 

Always the vote follows his voice. He doesn't intervene until 
there is a rough-house. Unlike some men who compromise differ- 
ences, he doesn't do it by soft soap and gentle conciliation. He 
uses a cast-iron voice and a bull vitality to pound in the sensible 
central interpretation of a plain man, and he does it with all the 
energy and noise of an exhorter of the extreme left. 

Henderson is one of the most deceptive men we have met. Like 
Ulysses, when he is seated you, would take him for nobody in par- 
ticular. In conversation he is a' little verbose, impersonal and ora- 
torical. In a small group he is without salience But when the 
herd cries of a thousand strong men (representing two and a half 
million men) pierce through to the layers of his stored vitality, 
hidden under a commonplace exterior, something awakens and he 
puts on power and rays it out on the mass till they obey him. He 
is not the initiator of general ideas ; he adjusts policy to labor opin- 
ion. But he is honest and he understands the leadership of men. 
He has served Great Britain well. To the conference Henderson 
said: 

A prominent representative of the left wing suggested that an- 
other prominent representative should be heard at our previous con- 

1 See page in. 



96 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

ference (Litvinoff, the representative of the Bolshevik government). 
In a spirit of toleration we consented. He came. He made his 
speech. We did not agree. We listened. We listened as believers 
in the right of free speech. 

The fight was over. Disorder died away. Kerensky came for- 
ward, his knees shaking, but with the orator's consciousness of past 
victories. He was a sick man. He made the impression of a suffer- 
ing, pure-minded radical, like one of our scholarly East Side Jewish 
boys. He has a face of seriousness, without humor, yellow-pale, a 
well-shaped head: the face and head designed for a larger body 
than his thin, small frame. He has the large mouth of the natural 
orator, a large but blunt nose. Before his talk, while he waited in 
an ante-room for the judgment of the delegates, he had walked 
back and forth in short nervous steps, occasionally pausing before 
a mirror to adjust his wing collar and puff necktie. He believes he 
has come to this planet on a high mission, and he has the face of 
a man who has gone stale with overwork and suffering; a vitality 
that is wholly of the spirit, with no physique to support it. 

Once he begins to speak he loses self-consciousness. His red- 
rimmed small dark eyes light. His voice, harsh but with a ring, 
stabs out the sentences. He speaks without effort, rising slowly 
to gesturing after ten minutes of less impassioned speech. Between 
sentences he pauses, sometimes for several seconds. Gradually and 
naturally he fires himself into exaltation and ends in a rush of 
words which sweeps the audience to applause. 

He spoke of the warning voices coming from Russia, when he 
was chief, when he begged the Allies to make clear their war aims, 
when they forced him into an offensive that broke Russia, an 
offensive fought without those war aims made clear: 

It is a thousand pities that the warning voices coming from 
Russia were not at that time heeded by the Western Allies. 

The audience cheered loudly. 

I bear witness here that the Russian people will never recognize 
the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which is hurling Russia into the abyss 
of annihilation. 

He spoke of the genuine fanatics and the German agents who 
enervated the mass of Russian soldiers. 

To my astonishment, some very serious European political men 
consider that regime as democratic which dispersed the constituent 
assembly, abolished freedom of speech, made human life the easy 



ANOTHER ENGLISH ROUND TABLE 97 

prey of every Red guardsman, destroyed the liberty of the elections 
even in the councils of the workmen, and made an end of all the 
institutions of self-government that have been elected by universal 
suffrage. If this method of dealing with the population may be 
considered democratic, then I shall be permitted to ask what may 
be the essence and characteristic features of genuine reaction? 

To the conference he outlined Russian conditions and asked 
"whether it is or is not possible to remain a calm spectator." He 
did not advocate a course of action. There were memorable mo- 
ments with Kerensky. One was when the audience rose to him and 
sang "For he's a jolly good fellow." It is the song with which the 
British greet a port wine peer and a jolly tar. It needs ruddy, 
rubicund faces and bottles and birds in the shank of a happy and 
mellow evening. Sung to this stricken man, lately out of hell, it 
had grim irony. 

The other quaint episode was when Kerensky, swept and up- 
lifted by the good will of the conference, turned and kissed the 
very British stolid face of Arthur Henderson. 

It is to be remembered in sketching this scene that the history 
of Kerensky is woven in with that of Henderson. It was the visit 
to Russia of Henderson and his talks with Kerensky that sent him 
home a believer in an international consultative labor conference. 
Then followed Henderson's advocacy of Stockholm, his ejection 
from the War Cabinet and his enhanced position in British labor. 

In the interval since the Nottingham meeting, the crushing im- 
plications of the mailed fist, pounded by the German War Party at 
Brest, had become altogether clear; its clenched blow at the West- 
ern front had brought tragedy into uncounted French and Belgian 
and British and German homes. Would the German workers keep 
in its grip or reach out after the clasp of democratic fellowship, 
offered at the London meeting by hands which held firmly the while 
their two-edged blade? These things and the course of allied diplo- 
macy were uppermost in the minds of the fraternal delegates who 
spoke. 

First, came Pierre Renaudel, of the French majority, who talked 
at a swift gallop of words in a loud monotone with that note of 
alarm which one sometimes marks in the Latin. He said: 

We must appeal to the revolutionary elements in the Central Em- 
pires. When we feel that movement coming toward us, then we 
shall have to see that it receives freedom of expression. 

There is still required to meet the requirements of the memo- 
randum that elements in Germany should acknowledge the responsi- 
bility for the war. Then it is for us to meet such a movement on 



98 THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

their part, and not to allow the governments to break such a move- 
ment. 

Perhaps more surely than any other speaker of the conference 
Jean Longuet, who followed him, struck the emotional receptivity 
of the audience. He struck it several times. His personality and 
his words create a little of a spell. He is a poet and mystic and 
dreamer, a dangerous dreamer to the mind of his opponents. He 
has the blood of three races in him, French and German and Eng- 
lish, and so comes of an international quality by birthright. Then 
in his person the long history of the labor movement is incarnated 
as in no other leader in Europe. He said: 

Our Jingoes have played into the hands of the German Jingoes. 
Your country and mine are in a worse condition, military and diplo- 
matic, than a year ago. Unrest brought out 180,000 workingmen in 
Paris alone, demanding that war aims should be published. In war 
time there exists no opportunity to have the voice of the nation 
heard. The battleground of militarism was once Czarism and is 
now Germanism. As a French patriot, I protest against the blind 
never-endism and jingoism. German militarism is the worst in the 
world, and I think that the blind never-endism policy of some of our 
leaders has helped the dangerous designs of German militarism. 
It is because we, of what has been called the minority, are demand- 
ing the uprising of the German people that we demand an inter- 
national meeting. The German people will not rise at the appeal of 
the capitalistic governments of France and England. But they will 
rise at the appeal of the working class (loudest applause of the day). 
This is why we wish the international meeting. 

As at the inter-Allied labor meeting in February, Albert Thomas 
was there, the French Socialist of the "right," former minister of 
munitions. Despite canards to the contrary, he reaffirmed his sub- 
scription to the British labor procedure. He is heavy set, with a 
ruddy rectangular beard. Full of vitality, he gestures with two 
hands and arms, lifting them higher and higher as if lifting a gift 
to heaven. He said: 

The military victory must be supplemented by the power of the 
international labor movement. 

He wrote on June 28, during the labor conference: 

By the rapid development of her forces, the Entente must assume 
the superior role. With perfect frankness, she must, at the same 
time, proclaim ceaselessly and define with increasing clearness the 
conditions of a just peace which she wishes to establish upon the 
earth. 



ANOTHER ENGLISH ROUND TABLE 99 

Vandervelde of Belgium came next, with his authority of bear- 
ing and strong voice of determination: 

In this hour of supreme anxiety, when the fate of democracy is 
at stake, I cannot think of Stockholm or Berne; I think of Calais, 
Amiens and Paris. After the infamous Brest-Litovsk peace, the 
German majority Socialists have raised a feeble protest, but they 
have not even recorded their votes against ft in the Reichstag. 

The Socialists in occupied Belgium send a message of greeting. 
They approve the attitude of their representatives at the February 
inter-Allied conference. We are ready to take part in an international 
conference, provided that those who stand on the principles of inter- 
nationalism shall be there. Those who have betrayed those princi- 
ples cannot be present. We have sent our resolutions to the German 
Socialists. As long as they do not answer we cannot attend an in- 
ternational conference. 

At the same time, we know there are those in the enemy ranks 
who stand for democratic peace — Kautsky, Bernstein, Rosa Luxem- 
burg, and other independent socialists. We must hope that the fer- 
ment of revolution which exists in every country will, if led aright, 
help us. When that day comes, we may hope that the time has 
come for the meeting of the International. 

Hjalmar B ranting, minister of state, leader of the Social Demo- 
cratic Party of Sweden, was more the typical statesman than any 
other person present. He was cautious and wise in speech, strongly 
pro-Ally, anti-German military, anti-Bolsheviki, but with tem- 
perateness in every utterance. He spoke as a man whose words 
carry influence and who, therefore, must be precise and sparing. 
He has gray hair, brushed back from the forehead, bushy eyebrows, 
a flowing moustache, large, dim eyes. He is solidly built, a man 
of weight, all around, the experienced administrator, the responsi- 
ble leader, the first citizen of Sweden. He gave the observer the 
feeling that for long vision and surety of action he was the outstand- 
ing man upon the platform. He has little appeal to an audience. 
There is no emotional fire to him. There is nothing histrionic in 
his make-up. It is all solid worth and intelligence. 

Branting's attitude was accurately given by the Labour Leader: 

M. Branting looked and, throughout his visit, spoke the part of 
an elderly responsible progressive statesman of a neutral govern- 
ment, terribly afraid of saying half a sentence that might prejudice 
his power to play a useful part in bringing a people's peace out of 
the welter of the world war. 

He made it clear, said the Labour Leader (itself an organ of the 
"left"), that 



ioo THE WESTERN FRONT OF LABOR 

his life-long as well as recent experiences of Prussian militarism 
had made him on the whole a majority rather than a minority 
socialist among the allies. He told us of Finland's recent sufferings 
and was sternly determined that we should not suspect him of either 
Bermondsey or Bolsheviki sympathies, and seemed more than per- 
plexed at ours. 

In a talk with the writer, Branting said: 

I have come on the invitation of the Labour Party. I was a 
little uncertain whether this was the opportune time, because the 
offensive was not finished, and I believed the time would be more 
appropriate after the collapse of the German offensive, when an 
equilibrium was established. The League of Nations, I hope, will 
come, after real peace and in connection with it. It should be a 
council of free nations who can enforce their will on humanity. 

We have had no manifestation from the German Majority Social- 
ist Party. One cannot say with surety what is their intention. I 
have had no direct information from them for long months. In 
certain things, there are great differences between German majority 
socialists and all others. The German socialists should give the same 
guarantee as the allied socialists. 

In the opinion of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden, the 
Bolsheviki are the enemies of the socialist movement. They perse- 
cute the socialists and suppress their journals. There is a growing 
feeling in Sweden for the allies. Our activists (for entering the 
war on the German side) are discredited by now. Among the lead- 
ers of the Bolsheviks there are pro-Germans. 

To the conference, Branting said: 

In Sweden, the Socialist and Labour Party now have more than 
one-third of the seats in the House of Commons. In the war, they 
have stood for neutrality, anti-military policy and social reform. 

The work of the International has fallen on the small countries, 
as the link between the belligerents. It is their duty to make the 
reconstruction of the International possible. 

We think it possible to find certain socialists in Germany who 
have stood against imperialism. 

It is possible that by the reconstruction of the International we 
might have avoided for the world the great and unhappy events and 
the terrible losses which have occurred since last summer. Had our 
comrade, Troelstra, been allowed to attend this conference we should 
have heard more of the present movement in the labor world of 
Germany. A blunder which I cannot understand has prevented him 
from coming here. (Voice: "Lloyd George.") 

The Independent Socialists of Germany are now fighting so 
bravely that we can hope that even amongst the German majority 
socialists, where imperial currents are so strong, there are other 



ANOTHER ENGLISH ROUND TABLE 101 

currents running in the other direction. I hope amongst that major- 
ity there are many who will see they must come over to fight for a 
just peace. The resurrection of the International is certain. 

To Camille Huysmans, M. Branting said: 

I have the impression of the American labor delegation that they 
do not well understand for what reason we are more concerned about 
time than they are. We must avoid the material ruin of Europe, and 
for this reason we fight; but we have also a peace policy. 

Summing up the speeches of the fraternal delegates, and the 
sense of the conference: 

They looked to an international conference, but not till 

(a) The German democracy showed convincing signs of respond- 
ing to the inter-Allied memorandum and accepting its principles. 

(b) The collapse of the German offensive. 

Because the western offensive was at its height and because the 
labor movement of Germany had not met the proposals of Allied 
labor, the British Labour Party in this June conference took no 
further steps in international diplomacy. The conditions were not 
ripe for an international meeting. The time was not now. But 
British labor was, none the less, slowly moving towards a con- 
sultative conference. Its belief was confirmed that there was no 
way but t J destroy the military power of Germany, the power which 
betrayed Russia at Brest-Litovsk. But it believed that the way to 
destroy it was by vigorous prosecution of the war and by the crea- 
tion of a democratic movement in Germany. J. H. Thomas, secre- 
tary of the National Union of Railwaymen (400,000 members), 
stood, with Ben Tillett, Will Thome and Will Crooks, for the vig- 
orous prosecution of the war. But he and his railwaymen were 
committed to the inter-allied memorandum, looking towards an in- 
ternational consultative conference. On June 16 he said to the 
railwaymen: 

Our cause is what it was four years ago. It was not territory, 
not conquest, but the destruction of militarism. For that reason I 
approved the Stockholm conference. Labor must fight and must 
insist upon meeting the workers of the word face to face. This is 
the only way of insuring an open peace. 

In Part I, we traced the origins of the British labor offensive 
(in the last six months of 191 7) ; in Part II its juncture with Allied 
labor and socialist groups (in the first six months of 191 8) in a 
common western front; we can now turn to a consideration of 
political and industrial developments in Great Britain which paral- 
leled these movements in international affairs. 



PART III 
THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 



CHAPTER XII 

THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER 

The British Labour Party transformed itself during the first 
half of 19 18. A federation of trade unions, trade councils and 
socialist societies it became a national party of workers "by hand or 
by brain." Its many streams gathered into a watercourse. 

The passage of the Representation of the People Act, adding 
eight or more million voters to the electorate, made it necessary for 
the political labor movement to widen its course to take in these new 
affluents, or be swamped by the very suffrage reform it had helped 
bring into flood. Moreover, labor was forewarned by its leaders 
that the approach of reconstruction called for far-reaching engineer- 
ing by the people themselves, if the post-bellum watersheds of exist- 
ence were not to be controlled by the propertied interests through 
their hold on the old parties. The political movement gathered 
head from the same freshets of social unrest that we have seen 
mounting higher and higher behind the conviction that with respect 
to the conduct of the war itself, not in national resistance to Prus- 
sian aggression (in that labor was at one with the government), but 
in a working-class diplomacy, in the appeal to democratic elements 
in Central Europe and in the establishment of an unimperialistic 
peace, the workers needed a free channel for expression distinct from 
the Foreign Office or the War Cabinet. 

So, in six months' time came the reorganization of the British 
Labour Party, the breaking of the truce with the government and 
the formulation of its radical domestic platform. The first and 
second of these developments will be taken up in this chapter; the 
third in the chapter succeeding. 

By the new constitution adopted at a special conference in late 
February, 1 provision was made for the first time for individual mem- 
bership in the party, and special facilities were given to women 
electors to join. A local labor party was called for in each Parlia- 
mentary constituency, with separate sections for men and women. 
Hitherto, there had been less than 100 such locals. The National 
Executive was enlarged from 16 members to 22, 13 to be chosen 

1 Appendix III. 

IOJ 



106 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

from the trade unions and other societies, five from the local organ- 
izations, and four from women. The "objects" of the party (hith- 
erto defined simply as "to organize and maintain in Parliament and 
the country a political labor party") were expanded to include the 
promotion of the interests of all producers without distinction of 
class or occupation. These objects were set out under three head- 
ings — "National," "Inter-Dominion" and "International": 

NATIONAL 

(a) To organize and maintain in Parliament and in the country 
a political labor party, and to insure the establishment of a local 
labor party in every county constituency and every parliamentary 
borough, with suitable divisional organization in the separate con- 
stituencies of divided boroughs. 

(b) To cooperate with the Parliamentary Committee of the 
Trades Union Congress, or other kindred organizations, in joint 
political or other action in harmony with the party constitution and 
standing orders. 

(c) To give effect as far as may be practicable to the principles 
from time to time approved by the party conference. 

(d) To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full 
fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof 
that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of 
the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular 
administration and control of each industry or service. 

(e) Generally to promote the political, social and economic 
emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who 
depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or by brain for 
the means of life. 

INTER-DOMINION 

(f) To cooperate with the labor organizations in the dominions 
and dependencies with a view to promoting the purposes of the party 
and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard 
of social and economic life for the working population of the re- 
spective countries. 

INTERNATIONAL 

(g) To cooperate with the labor organizations in other countries, 
and to assist in organizing a federation of nations for the mainte- 
nance of freedom and peace, and for the establishment of suitable 
machinery for the adjustment and settlement of international dis- 
putes by conciliation or judicial arbitration, and for such interna- 
tional legislation as may be practicable. 



THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER 107 

Further points as to the make-up and development of the polit- 
ical labor movement in Great Britain will show the significance of 
this change. The following table gives the fluctuations in the party 
membership since its formation in 1900: 

Trades Councils and 
Trade Unions. Local Labor Parties. Socialist Societies. 

No. Membership. No. No. Membership. Total. 

igoo-i 41 3S3.070 7 3 22,861 375,031 

1001-2 65 455,45o 31 2 13,861 469,311 

1902-3 127 847,315 49 2 i3>835 861,150 

1003-4 165 956,025 76 2 13,775 969,800 

1904-s 158 855,270 73 2 14,730 900,000 

1905-6 158 904,496 73 2 16,784 921,280 

1906-7 176 975,i82 83 2 20,885 9Q8,338 

1907 r8i 1,049,673 92 2 22,267 1,072,413 

1908 176 i,i27,o3r 133 2 27,465 1.158,565 

1909 172 1,450,648 155 2 30,982 1,486,308 

1910 ISi 1,394.402 148 2 31,377 i,43o,539 

1911 141 1,501,783 149 2 31,404 1,539.092 

1912 130 1,858,178 146 2 31.237 1,895,498 

1913 t t 158 2 33.304 t 

1914 101 1,572,391 179 2 33,230 1,612,147 

1915 in 2,053,73s 177 2 32,838 2,093,365 

1916 119 2^70,782 199 3 42,190 2,219,764 

1917 123 2,415,383 239 3 47,140 2,465,131 

t Owing to the operation of the Osborne Judgment it was impossible to compile membership sta - 
tistics for 1913. 

At the close of 191 7, the British Labour Party was, thus, a 
federation of 123 trade unions, 146 trade councils (which are com- 
posed of trade union branches), and 93 local labor parties, together 
with 3 socialist societies, a women's labor league, and one cooper- 
ative society. These bodies overlapped in a variety of ways; but of 
the aggregate membership of 2,465,131, 2,415,383 were affiliated 
through distinctly labor bodies. Of the remainder, 10,000 were 
affiliated through the British Socialist Party, 35,000 through the 
Independent Labour Party, 2,140 through the Fabian Society. The 
Tunbridge Wells Cooperative Society brought in 2,600, the Women's 
Labour League 5,500. It will be seen that there were less than 
50,000 "party socialists" among two and a half million trade union- 
ists. That is, 98 per cent of the British Labour Party was trade 
unionist; 2 per cent "party socialist" and even of that 2 per cent, 
a large fraction was trade unionist. We are thus dealing, in con- 
trast to the American Federation of Labor, with a political labor 
movement; but in contrast to the political labor movements on the 
European continent, with a trade union, rather than an old-line 
socialist body. 

This make-up has been reflected in both party control and 
finances. No trade council or local labor party contributed over 
£2 a year to the treasury; the socialist groups together paid less 
than £200, or less than each of such trade union bodies as the 
Amalgamated Association of Card and Blowing Room Operatives 



108 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

(54,967 members), the National Union of Boot and Shoe operatives 
(51,035 members), the Postmen's Federation (54,414 members). 
The general unions of unskilled and semi-skilled labor ranged from 
the 28,985 of the Dock Labourers and the 47,881 of the Dock, 
Wharf, Riverside and General Workers' Union, to the 82,117 of the 
National Amalgamated Union of Labour, the 168,000 of the Work- 
ers' Union and the 188,774 of the National Union of General Work- 
ers. And outstripping them came the great trade groups — the Amal- 
gamated Society of Engineers with 160,000 members, the National 
Union of Railwaymen with 130,368 members, 1 the Textile Factory 
Workers' Association with 193,788 (paying £807), and the Miners' 
Federation with 600,000 members and contributing £2,500 to the 
common purse. 

These national unions have functioned also in the party repre- 
sentation in Parliament, putting up the necessary financial guar- 
antees for election expenses. Thus, a list of 37 constituencies and 
candidates, published at Nottingham, began with — 

Ayrshire, South — James Brown, 56 Annabank-by-Ayr, Scotland 
(Miners' Federation of Great Britain), 

and closed with 

Wolverhampton, West — A. G. Walkden, 337 Gray's Inn Road, Lon- 
don, W. C. (Railway Clerks' Association). 

The Miners sponsored 12 out of the 37, or more than the 10 
of the Independent Labour Party. Out of a supplemental list of 
81 candidates who had received official endorsement of the party 
executive and offered themselves for selection by constituencies, 20 
had been put forward by national labor unions which undertook 
to finance their candidatures if the districts nominating them met 
with their approval. 

The approach of the party executive to the problem of reorgan- 
ization was set forth in submitting the agenda for discussion at the 
February conference. It said: 

The strain imposed by the war has not only broken down the 
competitive industrial system and has led to national organization 
to a degree that appeared practically impossible in the days of peace. 
It has also been possible to withdraw over five million men from 
national production, and yet at the same time to increase our pro- 
ductivity to an enormous extent. These and many similar facts have 

1 These figures refer to the membership affiliated to the British Labour 
Party; not to the total membership of the organizations. 



THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER 109 

led the more thoughtful of the community to consider proposals for 
national reorganization on lines which were popular only in labor 
circles before the war. Further, the participation of the British 
labor movement in international affairs and its attempt to institute a 
genuine working class diplomacy, has brought prestige to the party 
in a manner that can hardly be realized without a full knowledge of 
the facts. 

Labor policy on the national food supply has also been consis- 
tently ahead of that propounded by other political sections and has 
had to be invariably adopted after suffering months of hostility or 
indifference. Moreover, it is remembered that the party from the 
early days of the war has stood consistently for a decent system of 
separate allowances and pensions for the men with the colors, and 
their dependants, and while the original "£i per week campaign" did 
not altogether achieve its purpose, constant labor pressure, particu- 
larly on the part of local labor organizations throughout the country, 
made its influence felt in the right direction. 

All these circumstances have been the occasion for the develop- 
ment of a certain amount of community consciousness, and the party 
has been definitely accepted by ever-increasing numbers of the public 
as its concrete expression. 

When the executive committee, therefore, at the suggestion of 
the secretary, considered the possible developments of the party in 
the future, there was general unanimity as to the lines that should 
be adopted. It was felt very strongly that our machinery should be 
adapted so as to bring into the ranks of the party those large sections 
of the public, who, for various reasons, have neither the necessity 
nor opportunity of joining trade unions on the one hand, or, on the 
other, who are not prepared to associate with the socialist organiza- 
tions already affiliated with the party. 

The difficulty lay in reconciling this policy of expansion with one 
which, at the outset of a costly campaign, would not scrap the back- 
ing in money and interest of the constituent labor bodies. On one 
hand, there was rebellion at the block system of voting, by which 
a few great unions could control things, and on the other, fear- 
someness lest, in throwing open the doors to outsiders, labor would 
lose the political instrument it had so slowly built up. The outcome 
was a compromise. As Henderson put it: 

In drafting the new constitution, the executive had regard to the 
necessity of achieving unity. Under the new scheme we have sought 
to distribute power and responsibility between the national unions 
and the local organizations, and between the official element and 
the individual member. One important feature of the constitution 
is that it makes the local groups the unit of organization rather 
than the national societies, and thus establishes a more direct rela- 
tionship with the individual electors in every constituency. 



no THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

THE RISE OF POLITICAL ACTION 

By so much has trade unionism entered upon a new stage in its 
organized development in England. Labor, unadulterated by mid- 
dle-class persons, had first to make its fight as a body of wage- 
earners for the right of collective bargaining. This is the long fight 
of wage-earners alone — manual workers, craftsmen. Gradually, 
British labor found that it had to spend itself in agitation and 
indirect pressure in order to protect itself against hostile acts and 
to secure labor legislation. Lacking a political party, it lacked 
direct representation. It sought it, and trade unionism entered 
upon a second stage. 

In the final years of the last century, Liberal-Labour members 
slid into Parliament between the stratified layers of the old parties. 
In 1899, the Trades Union Congress established a political labor 
organization by creating the Labour Representation Committee. Out 
of this, through the years of this century, has grown the British 
Labour Party. The Labour Party was strengthened by the Taff 
Vale case when in 1902 the Taff Vale Railway Company obtained 
damages from a railway union because of a strike involving breach 
of contract. The return of 29 labor members to Parliament in 1906 
was the answer to this attempt to cripple the industrial movement. 
Labor learned that when it is attacked on the industrial field, one 
of the swiftest redresses is by political demonstration. In the same 
year, 1906, labor obtained the Trade Disputes Act, freeing the trade 
unions from such actions as that of the Taff Vale Railway Company. 
Naturally enough^ British labor came to believe that direct political 
power (that is, representation in Parliament) is right and neces- 
sary to protect the labor movement from industrial crushing. 

This belief did not go unchallenged. In 1909, a trade unionist 
by the name of Osborne claimed that the expenditure of the funds 
of his railway union for political purposes was illegal. The House 
of Lords decided in his favor against the union. Labor replied to 
this and other challenges by electing 42 members in December, 
1 9 10, to the House of Commons; in 19 13, it obtained a Trade 
Union Act, which in part set aside the Osborne judgment. Again, 
labor found that political action alters industrial status. 

As C. T. Cramp, president of the National Union of Railwaymen, 
said on June 17, 1918: 

The position (of labor) cannot be met by industrial action alone. 
The incidence of taxation and many other problems must be fought 
out in Parliament. 

The war brought in the third stage more swiftly than it would 
otherwise have come — that in which the workers generally recognize 



THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER in 

that to make the world safe for such part of democracy as they may 
be, they must concern themselves with more than hours and wages 
in the shop, and more than labor legislation in Parliament. They 
must concern themselves with the whole scheme of social condi- 
tions and relations in which these things are imbedded, and which 
affect unnumbered other people in much the same way. The shoe- 
maker's children are not the only ones without shoes. The war 
experience that drove this realization home, opened up the vista 
of making common cause with those unnumbered others to whom, 
being organized, labor could offer not only proposals for democratic 
change but also a practical political fellowship. 

The party's re-birth registered the fact that labor had slowly 
worked out a policy distinct from that of the governing classes. 
It saw the necessity of sharing in the control of state policy and of 
sharing that control with those who felt as it did. The danger to 
the Allied cause, as the labor leaders saw it, had been in stripping 
the war of its moral values. They did not wish that Lord Milner, 
Lord Curzon and Mr. Balfour should have the sole statement of 
war aims. Likewise, they saw that the common people of all Eng- 
land could not leave the care of disabled soldiers and sailors, the 
control of mines and railways, the release of the land, the restora- 
tion or substitution of trade union regulations, taxation, to Lord 
Milner, Lord Curzon and Mr. Balfour, alone. They desired a dif- 
ferent kind of reconstruction out of the wreck of the war. 

So labor hitched its wagon to a star and set off as a common 
carrier down the war-sobered high roads of old England. As Arthur 
Henderson put it: — Labor could no longer be "merely a critical 
voice in Parliament and an active revolutionary ferment in the 
country"; it would "at no distant date be required to accept re- 
sponsibility for the carrying out of the policy it advocates." 

THE BREAKING OF THE TRUCE 

Military developments and the continued postponement of a 
general election made the Labour Party move slowly in 191 8, fol- 
lowing the February conference at which it adopted its new 
constitution. With the German drive against Amiens, it shelved a 
scheme of propaganda meetings throughout the spring in the in- 
dustrial cities. (This was mistakenly interpreted in the American 
press as a decision to abandon its whole war aims and inter-bellig- 
erent conference procedure.) 

At its June conference, it "broke the truce" but did so in a 
way which upset the feelings both of the extreme left and of the 
government labor group of the extreme right. It carried the mod- 



ii2 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

erate left by taking a step in the direction they wanted to go, and 
the moderate right by stopping short of a decision that meant that 
labor members must leave the government. It severed labor policy 
from government policy in the practical politics of current elections 
while guarding against a move which could be interpreted as out 
of sympathy with the rigorous support of the Allied troops in throw- 
ing back the swollen German armies from France, now as at no 
time since the earlier years of the war, threatening Paris and the 
channel ports. 

Elihu Root (July, 1918) phrased with exactness the attitude of 
the British Labour Party to the coalition government. His analysis 
concerned itself with our own government, but the claim he made 
for the Republican Party was the claim made by the British Labour 
Party. He said: 

We have been building up by a great mass of statutes an execu- 
tive authority unprecedented in scope and absolutism. No govern- 
ment can afford to go on without the tests and criticisms of policy 
and performance which can hardly be furnished during the con- 
tinuance of this war except by putting Republicans in Congress. 
[Labor men in Parliament.] With the tremendous power which the 
exigencies of war have vested in the executive branch of govern- 
ment, it is very difficult for legislative members of the party in power 
to express, or indeed to form, independent judgment and to subject 
measures proposed for legislation to the process of correction and 
improvement by discussion and amendment ; yet without this, terrible 
mistakes are certain to be made. 

i 
[In the matter of policy, of course, the analogy would be closer 
if we should imagine Root in the White House and Wilson stating 
the case for the more radical party out of power.] 

At the Nottingham conference in January, the question of the 
continuance of the labor members in the coalition government was 
already actively agitated. The action of the executive in support- 
ing the candidature of G. H. Roberts at the recent bye-election at 
Norwich, following his appointment as minister of labor and in 
the face of opposition from the local Trades and Labour Council, 
was sharply protested in resolutions offered by the Huddersfield and 
District Associated Trades and Labour Council and from the similar 
body at Great Yarmouth. Resolutions for the withdrawal of the 
labor members from the coalition government were offered by the 
Manchester and Salford Labour Party; by the Lambeth Trades 
Council and Labour Representation Committee (which urged it "in 
order to regain for labor the freedom of complete independence, 
when dealing with the great economic, industrial and social prob- 



THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER 113 

lems which must inevitably be dealt with in the near future") ; by 
the British Socialist Party (which held that "the methods employed 
to remove Mr. Henderson from the War Cabinet when acting in 
perfect accord with the decisions of the Labour Party, prove that 
participation in the government and fidelity to the labor movement 
are incompatible"); by the Willesden Labour Party; by the Shef- 
field Trades and Labour Council (which maintained that "the 
chief political function of the working class is the destruction of 
the existing capitalist order") ; by the East Ham Trades and Labour 
Council ("in view of the continued bare-faced robbery of the peo- 
ple by the food pirates and the open support given by the govern- 
ment to this action in steadfastly refusing to suppress the robbers 
and to administer the whole food supply of the nation in the inter- 
ests of the people") ; by the Edinburgh Labour Party, the Scientific 
Instrument Makers' Trade Society, and the Glasgow Trades Council. 
As noted on page 45, under Henderson's personal leadership, the 
resolutions were voted down, on the ground that withdrawal might 
embarrass the government in the prosecution of the war. Six months 
later, at the June Conference, the party executive itself came for- 
ward with this resolution: 

That this conference of the Labour Party accepts the recom- 
mendation of the party executive that the existence of the political 
truce should be no longer recognized. 

In presenting the resolution, Henderson recalled the facts that 
soon after the outbreak of war a political truce was entered into 
by representatives of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and 
the Labour Party, wherein it was agreed that in the event of any 
parliamentary vacancies occurring there should be no contested 
elections. The truce held good with renewals until December 31, 
19 1 6, when, he said, the other parties sought to import conditions 
into the agreement which the Labour Party executive were not pre- 
pared to accept. Since the end of 191 6, there had been no written 
compact. But in the intervening period, the executive felt that the 
circumstances of the times were such that it was altogether desir- 
able that the spirit of the truce should be observed. Nevertheless, 
on several occasions the affiliated labor organizations, in constituen- 
cies where vacancies occurred, had accepted the executives' view 
with the greatest reluctance. In the Keighley and Wansbeck divi- 
sions, the local organizations contested the vacancies against the ex- 
ecutive's recommendation. In Keighley, the candidate, on a peace- 
by-negotiation war platform, polled two thousand out of six thou- 
sand votes. In Wansbeck, the miner candidate, on the same plat- 
form, polled five thousand out of approximately eleven thousand 



ii4 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

votes, and came within 547 votes of winning. By June, therefore, 
the executive had decided that the conference should be invited to 
vote on the issue of breaking the truce with the government. Hen- 
derson said: 

I hold very strong views about the government and the war, and 
that is why I have declined, during the last twelve months, to take 
any action that would place this government out of office and put in 
a government whose policy I know nothing about. The last thing 
the Labour Party ought to do, having regard to its small member- 
ship in the House, is to make itself responsible for putting one 
government out without knowing what the next would be. If your 
executive had come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when 
we ought to withdraw the whole of our members from the coalition, 
they would have faced the conference boldly with a recommendation 
to that effect. 

We believe it was much better that bye-elections should not be 
contested. That was observed until the Salford election. Ben Tillett 
was one of our listed candidates, and he went there, and fought and 
won. He, a supporter of the war, broke the truce and won. 
Can you wonder if somebody thinks they can repeat Tillett? 
That is the issue we had to face, and were compelled to face, because 
Salford was followed by Keighley, and Keighley by Wansbeck. 

The press created a crisis which is blown to the winds. We are 
asked to vote on one aspect only — the truce as regards bye-elections. 
The phrase could have been included. The resolution can have no 
other meaning. It is not intended to cover all relationships. Those 
who link up the truce and the coalition government do so for pur- 
poses of mischief. Not till after the Wansbeck election did we make 
our decision. We've either got to have a truce and everybody keep 
it, or else rid the executive of responsibility. You've got to accept 
the truce if you reject the recommendation. The executive will lose 
little sleep whichever way you decide. 

If the executive had wished the withdrawal of our representa- 
tives from the government, it would have come out and said so. In 
a war, one of the dangers is to change the government too easily. 
For myself, I shall not be party to any government that is not 
under the control of labor. But there is no connection between ap- 
proving the candidacy of the miners' representative, and breaking the 
government. This, then, is the only issue: to have a truce and 
everybody keep it, or no truce. 

i 

Then followed a speech by Robert Smillie against Henderson's 
conservative course. Smillie wanted to break the truce and he 
wanted, also, the labor members out. In his voice there is that 
which makes you remember the multitude whom he represents. He 
is a man of middle life, with a face of sensitiveness — a face that is 
sad in repose and into which consciousness of power passes when 



THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER n| 

he speaks. His eyes carry a far-seeing look. He is a man of the 
common people who has seen and felt suffering. He hates that 
men should needlessly suffer as he hates nothing else, and this 
makes him the militant pacifist that he is. In supporting the Brit- 
ish war aims memorandum at the joint December (191 7) meeting, 
he had said: "Peace now would be a victory for humanity, and 
peace two years hence, whoever the victor, would be a defeat for 
humanity." To this June (19 18) conference, Smillie said: 

At Wansbeck, we wanted a miner. The miners are not an unim- 
portant part of this conference. With the assistance of the Labour 
Party, we could have won the election. We were told that there was 
a truce. As it was, without the help of the Labour Party, the elec- 
tion gave an indication of the temper of this country from end to 
end. After the truce was entered into, it was reported to the rank 
and file. And now, this morning, we were amazed to hear from 
Mr. Henderson that there has been no truce since 1916. And he 
suggests one or two words, "as regards bye-elections," which will 
change the whole sense of it. Mr. Henderson has had a hand in 
changing governments during this war. Blindfolded in this hall, he 
could make sure of a better government than the present — a govern- 
ment that has refused to allow you to entertain an honored guest, 
Troelstra, the Dutch delegate, that has refused to allow us to choose 
our company, a government who prevented Maggie Bondfield from 
going to America. 1 

And we are going to end the truce, Mr. Henderson. 

We are not as strong as we should be if our labor men were 
outside the government. We should have won our Wansbeck elec- 
tion with the assistance of the Labour Party. I sincerely hope this 
conference will end our connection with the coalition government. 
There is no dignity left to the labor movement if the government 
refuses our invited guests and refuses to let Maggie Bondfield go, 
because she does not think as the government thinks. So now we 
are to end a truce that doesn't exist, and we want no new truces 
behind our backs. 

J. Bromley, secretary of the Locomotive Engineers and Fire- 
men (34,000 members), backed up Smillie and said: 

The opinion of the rank and file is to break the truce. 

J. Jones, a delegate of the General Workers (164,000 members), 
represented the socialist right. He said: 

It's not unity some people want but scalps. Bad as this country 
is, it's the best I know of. I'm not going to change Lloyd George 

1 Miss Margaret Bondfield was selected to go to the St. Paul meeting 
of the American Federation of Labor as one of the two fraternal delegates 
representing the Trades Union Congress. Her going was frustrated. 



n6 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

for Lansdowne. We want to escape the pitfalls our comrades in 
other countries have met. Lord Curzon is more hateful than a 
Prussian Junker. Carson to me is first cousin to Judas Iscariot. 
But in spite of the bad company we have to keep, we'll go on with 
the government. We have gained the recognition from the govern- 
ment, that from the ranks of organized labor men can be found 
who can handle the situation. I'm a pro-war socialist and a pro- 
Ally socialist. 

Robert Williams is secretary of the Federation of Transport 
Workers (350,000 members) and a leader of the radical element. 
He said he expected to see Clynes (who was then parliamentary 
secretary to the food controller) come forward in defense of the 
position of himself and the other labor members of the government: 

I look on Mr. Clynes as a kind of devil's advocate. The Labour 
Party is irrevocably established on the economic necessities of the 
common people. Perhaps it would be better if shorn of some of its 
present members. If the resolution means the withdrawal of Clynes 
and Barnes, so much the better for the labor movement. 

As the debate went on, as between "anti-national factionalists" 
and "bitter-endian jingoes," neither had the advantage. The posi- 
tion of the center was strengthened. W. Whitefield, a delegate of 
the Miners' Federation, protested against Smillie's views, saying: 

The head of a great organization should not make speeches on 
which the rank and file are not consulted. 

Sylvia Pankhurst (of the British Socialist Party, with a member- 
ship of 10,000) spoke of "labor members forced to vote against 30 
shillings for agricultural labor," of "secret treaties, covering not 
only Alsace-Lorraine, but the left bank of the Rhine and Mesopo- 
tamia," of "the atrocious Japanese and Chinese business," of "the 
Japanese entering Russia to crush the socialist movement." 

Whitefield and Miss Pankhurst were dealt with exactly alike by 
the conference. Their first sentences were listened to in silent atten- 
tion. As Whitefield proceeded to give a militant pro-war speech, 
and Miss Pankhurst to give a denunciation of foreign policy, the 
delegates lost interest in what had become old stuff, and chatted 
among themselves till a universal murmur arose, with the figure of 
a kindly old man inaudible but gesticulating, followed by a pretty 
woman, audible, earnest, but ineffective. As the buzz of conversa- 
tion grew against Miss. Pankhurst, and as the chairman implored 
her not to roam the earth but to speak to the question, she said: 



THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER 117 

We want to end the truce because, as I say, our foreign policy 
is wrong. If you don't fight bye-elections, you are responsible for 
foreign policy, profiteering, low soldiers' pensions, massacres in Ire- 
land. 

George N. Barnes, one of the eight labor members in the Lloyd- 
George government, and successor to Henderson in the War Cabinet, 
spoke in a sad, tired voice, as if the responsibilities of his office had 
almost overborne him. He spoke as to a lost cause. He was inter- 
rupted with murmurs of dissent. When he said he would regard 
relief from office as a "great deliverance," a mighty "Oh" went up 
from the front seats. He had the respect but not the backing of 
the majority in his argument that labor must swallow the govern- 
ment policy whole. He said: 

If you pass this resolution, it seems to me you will be driven to 
take the next step by the logic of events. There is a great deal more 
in the resolution than would appear on the face of it. This is one 
act of many in the last few years. This is the culminating act, 
engineered by those who have taken advantage of every grievance, 
real or imaginary, during the last three years, who have trotted out 
imaginary secret treaties (cries of "Oh"), who have taken advantage 
of our weariness, who have trotted out tales about financiers meet- 
ing abroad, who have done every mortal thing within their power to 
separate the people from those who are prosecuting the war. 

I believe this resolution will have the effect of weakening not 
only the nation but the Labour Party. There are many who believe 
that the Labour Party is stronger to-day because of the strenuous 
propaganda of Mr. Smillie and his friends. I believe that is a pro- 
found mistake. I believe that the Labour Party has gained in 
strength because of its attitude at the beginning of the war and 
since. 

I am in the government as the representative of the Labour 
Party. I'm going to stop there till the Labour Party withdraws me. 
Consider the position of divided allegiance that this resolution to 
break the truce puts us into. What am I to do? ["Get out," a dele- 
gate shouts.] I am for this war. It is a war for the liberties of 
people in this and other countries. This resolution will create polit- 
ical factions. It may have the effect of getting the government to 
declare war against us. This old country is, with all its faults, the 
best of all. Unity against a common foe — the Labour Party has 
stood for this for three and a half years. The resolution will put 
snags in the way of the government. Let us reject the resolution 
and reaffirm our resolution to win the war. 

He told how impossible his position would become if the gov- 
ernment sent him to a constituency to support the coalition candi- 



n8 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

date and the Labour Party asked him to back the opposition candi- 
date. 

Then rose J. R. dynes. 

As the political writers used to say, he is the "little giant" of 
the trade union political movement. He needs a platform in order 
to be seen, for he is tiny, and they gave him the platform. He is 
clear-thinking and direct. He is only a few inches over five feet 
in height. His early hardships have turned him gray and left him 
frail. What he said, at this distance without the matrix of labor pol- 
itics and personal feeling which gave each sentence its setting, has 
no very spectacular quality. But he hewed to the shortest line 
between positions which were tenable to his fellow members in the 
government and to his fellows in the "new majority" in the Labour 
Party — the line which the conference took. He said: 

I do not go so far as Mr. Barnes. Labor must reserve some 
measure of freedom. I am of the same mind concerning the resolu- 
tion as that of the executive, not caring much whether it's passed or 
not. Do the trade unions and constitutional parts of the labor move- 
ment want to resist the government in its opposition to German 
aggression ? Let us be fair in this matter of passports. The Bolshe- 
viki government refused passports to socialists. Other governments 
have refused passports. They are not predisposed villains. 

What is the purpose of this resolution? Is it to make the govern- 
ment weaker in the prosecution of the war? Are we labor members 
to leave the. government for the purpose of making the government 
stronger in the prosecution of war? I'm willing to take any method 
to test the opinion of the rank and file on this. Let one of the 
delegates who differs with me resign his seat in his working class 
constituency, and I'll resign mine. I'm willing to test out any con- 
stituency on his position and mine. Is organized labor prepared to 
barter Belgium? Is organized labor prepared to give up the rights 
of small nations? [A voice: "Ireland."] Is labor prepared to be 
a sect and sever itself from the great national purpose? 

When our inter-Allied war aims reached Germany, they were 
received with a whiff of contempt. [Voice: "Unfair." Interrup- 
tions.] 

Are you willing to fight for labor's war terms as well as to 
formulate them? I'm willing to take the test this minute of allow- 
ing the working class to decide on my position. 

Next came Ben Turner, one of the executives of the Labour 
Party. He represents the General Union of Textile Workers (21,000 
members). He said: 

Include in that test the soldiers and sailors. The rank and file 
opinion is that they're as anxious for the prosecution of peace now; 
as they were for war. (Cheers from most of the delegates.) 



THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER 119 

I ask our members in the government, as pals of my own, to come 
on the side of the soldiers and sailors who want peace, and the 
women who want peace. There has been much spoken here of 
Germany's shameful peace with Russia. Yes, but that was the peace 
of military victory — a peace of force. What the peoples, all the 
people of Europe, need, is a peace by negotiation. 

Then came the vote, 1,704,000 in favor of breaking the truce 
with the government, 951,000 against, — a majority of 753,000. The 
vote was a broad hint to the administration. As one delegate ex- 
pressed it — "We have a reactionary government. This is a kind 
of warning to them that they take care." The Telegraph (a semi- 
official government organ) scented danger: 

Its underlying purpose is not merely to break the truce in the 
constituencies but to break the coalition government by making the 
position of labor ministers impossible. Those who engineered this 
knew that any direct attack was foredoomed to failure because labor 
remains as unshaken in its determination to win the war as it was 
when the first truce was signed. Robert Smillie, the president of the 
Miners' Federation, and possibly the most powerful figure in the 
British trade union movement, was in his most aggressive mood. 
His speech was almost as bitter against Mr. Henderson as against 
the government. 

This was over-stating it. Clynes' stand, as a member of the 
food administration, enabled the conference to break the truce with 
the government without swinging so far to the left as to create the 
impression of national disunity in the face of the German drive. 
When he first rose to speak, the delegate behind the writer said, 
"Now, he will straighten everything out." This was less true of 
his remarks in the debate than of the public statement with which 
he followed up the vote and in which he summed up the action 
taken as meaning not that labor would lessen its support in the 
prosecution of the war, nor that representatives of labor would 
cease to serve their country in any office of state; it expressed the 
desire in labor circles to put forward candidates in bye-elections 
without the restraint which the party truce had imposed. Clynes' 
moderate leadership made him the outstanding figure of the confer- 
ence, just as in the weeks succeeding he became the most talked of 
man in the whole labor movement. During the June conference, 
he was reelected to the executive committee of the Labour Party 
by a vote of over two million, which was 440,000 more than the 
next in line. And on Lord Rhondda's death, he was made Food 
Controller of Great Britain. 



iao THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 



THE ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY 

Clynes is fifty years old. He went to work as a half-timer in 
the jenny-gate at the Dowry Mill, Oldham, when he was ten years 
old. Two years later he became a full-time worker. At twenty- 
two he was organizer for the Lancashire district of the Gasworkers' 
and General Workers' Union. For twenty-one years he was secre- 
tary of the Oldham Trades and Labour Council. For years he has 
been president of the National Union of General Workers, and 
chairman of the National Federation of Labourers' Unions. 

In the House of Commons on June 6, he said of his job: "The 
joint efforts at the ministry of a peer of the realm (Lord Rhondda) 
and an ordinary laborer might be regarded as an extraordinary com- 
bination," and went on, in a quick survey of food control in the 
island commonwealth as it had been carried forward in the teeth of 
U-boats and food profiteers, of the "queue" agitation of the North- 
cliff e press, on the one hand, and local labor demonstrations on the 
other. As an exhibit of both responsible administration and social 
policy, which will weigh in the balance in the trust which the Eng- 
lish people comes to place in the political labor movement, what he 
said may well be quoted here: 

As to meat, the position was that they had eliminated all compe- 
tition and all profiteering. Rich and poor were placed substantially 
on the same level. This had gone far to restore the confidence of 
the community in regard to the food situation. The meat problem 
in a nutshell was this : they had to arrange that the required number 
of beasts and sheep should be killed in 14,000 slaughterhouses, and 
delivered, together with their proportion of frozen meat, to 52,000 
retailers' shops through 2,000 local food committee areas, and that 
must be done at the right moment, or as near that as possible, in 
order to supply the demands of 40,000,000 consumers. It was not 
too much to say that the meat coupon was honored as surely as is 
the British bank-note. 

An aspect of the milk problem was that of distribution. During 
the war there had grown up in this trade several combines of very 
great power. It has been agreed that the ministry must become 
responsible for the wholesale collection, utilization and distribution 
of milk. 

Practically the whole of this year's fruit crop must be reserved 
for the jam manufacturers. 

Between 20 and 30 different raw materials are included under the 
head of oils, fat and margarine. The productive capacity of the 
margarine industry in this country has increased fourfold during 
the war, and we are now entirely independent of foreign supplies. 

Storage capacity has been increased from 32 000,000 to 35,000,000 



THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER 121 

cubic feet. By the end of this year, our cold storage places will 
show an increase of 25 per cent upon their pre-war capacity. 

We have now 535 national food kitchens, and are negotiating 
with local authorities for the establishment of an additional 500. 

We have never believed that we could do much that would be 
popular; but we do desire to avoid doing anything that would be 
harmful or unnecessary. We want to let the flow of trade go its 
usual course if that flow is consistent with the needs of the com- 
munity. If it is not, there must be checks and there must be inter- 
ference and immediate action by the Ministry of Food. 

It is with Clynes that Hoover dealt in reckoning with England in 
striking a war time equilibrium in the world's food supply. And it 
is with Clynes that British labor dealt, in the last analysis, in strik- 
ing its balance in supporting the war and at the same time project- 
ing its alternative working class policies, domestic and foreign. 

To one who saw him in action at this June conference, he car- 
ried conviction that he never would leave the trade union movement 
and the Labour Party. He would never join a "split," never lend 
himself to a Morning Post trade union party. He would always 
test his own position by an appeal to a working class constituency. 
He would abide by their decision. If any one thought he could be 
used to break the labor movement, that person did not know Clynes. 
The marks of the sufferings of his early life are on him. He is of 
the working class. He will die in their ditch. If organized labor 
pulled him out of the government, he would come. But he would 
put up a stiff ingenious fight before he came, and would possibly 
convert it to his ideas. For he believes in both propaganda and 
administrative work. He believes in labor when it is declamatory, 
and dissident, and he believes in it when it enters on executive 
responsibility. He understands Smillie and Walter Appleton, Snow- 
den and Havelock Wilson. He is the greatest success of the labor 
movement in government work. One left the conference feeling that 
honest, saddened George Barnes might drop out in the next shuf- 
fle, for lie had lost the knack of popular appeal. But Clynes would 
continue in power, until the parting of the ways, for the government 
of Britain had need for him. He is mentally agile but sincere. He 
is pure proletarian. If labor should come to power in the next 
years, as the Tories forebode, Clynes no less than Thomas and Hen- 
derson, and with greater experience in public administration than 
either, would be timber for the premiership. Any man that could 
hold his popularity after rationing food could harmonize a cabinet 
To these names, if the central leaders should be frustrated in their 
moderate course in a period of dragging peace or of sharp cleavages 
in the period of reconstruction, were to be added Smillie and Mac- 



122 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

Donald. And at risk of restating from a different angle, some of 
the developments already covered and some also to be taken up 
in later chapters, it is important in our interpretation of the crystal- 
lizations of British labor thought, to quote an interview which this 
government labor leader, yet active member of the new majority, 
gave the writer at the close of this London meeting in June. Clynes 
said: 

The Reform Bill has been carried, thus preparing the way for 
the General Election. The Bill tends to strengthen labor. All the 
parties are preparing for the test of strength. It is only natural 
for labor to secure freedom in order to test its strength. The break- 
ing of the truce does not register the slightest tendency to lessen the 
support by labor of the government in its war-making. 

On the international situation, the attitude of labor is scarcely 
to be distinguished from that of President Wilson in interpreting 
the aims of America. Labor has held special conferences on the 
international situation. And also the labor and socialist forces of 
the allied nations have held conferences. Although America was 
not represented, we have had the benefit of conversations with Amer- 
ican delegates of labor, and the results of our previous conferences 
were quite in keeping with the speeches of the American delegates, 
and completely in line with the expressions of President Wilson. 

Our inter-Allied program declared that a German victory would 
be a disaster and defeat for democracy, and that such an aggression 
as Germany was guilty of upon Belgium cannot be tolerated by a 
democracy. Germany has shown by her policy in Russia (at Brest- 
Litovsk and after) that moral appeals are of no avail, and that 
force is the only doctrine which Germany recognizes. The inter- 
Allied memorandum held that settlements, properly made, would set- 
tle internal affairs and international relations. Having laid down 
such a program, it has been proclaimed to the peoples of Germany and 
Austria. It is for them to reply whether they follow democratic 
principles and laws of consent, instead of the joint power of kaisers 
and armaments. Working-class opinion will not tolerate any inter- 
national talks about not waging the war to the end, unless the peoples 
of Germany and Austria signify their willingness and agreement to 
these pronouncements of Allied opinion which date back as far as 
February, 1915. 

For several reasons, of working and wage conditions, discontent 
has arisen, and enmity to the government, among certain groups. 
And that hostility to the government has been set up as hostility 
to the organized resistance of the government against Germany. It 
is essential to distinguish here between enmity to the government 
and the continuing unity of working class opinion on war policy. 

The action of certain local labor and socialist bodies, undermin- 
ing the labor members of the Government, has provoked the retalia- 
tion of the threat to start a purely trade union political party. Our 



THE WORKERS AT WESTMINSTER 123 

own desire is to regard these differences as temporary and subordi- 
nate. The unity of the nation cannot be maintained without unity 
of the parties — certainly not without the unity of the Labour Party. 
It is therefore unlikely that there will be very much response to 
the suggestion of starting a trade union political party. But the 
protests may do good in showing a resentment against the action 
taken by certain local labor and socialist bodies in their attacks on 
labor men in the government. 

Recently an editor had attacked Clynes. Controversy is one of 
the things he does best. He said: 

Dear Sir, 

In your last issue you indicate that I "even went so far as to say 
that labor could not produce enough able men to form a govern- 
ment." I send you this note chiefly to deny this statement. Even if 
I thought it was so, no labor man need go out of his way to say 
such a thing, as I hope that enough able men will in due course be 
found in the ranks of labor fit for any national duty to which labor 
might be called. 

And further: 

You state that "the government has mocked at every suggestion 
of discussing peace on the great basic principles laid down by Presi- 
dent Wilson, and has rejected with contempt eight or nine peace 
offers." Such statements as these are doing great mischief. They 
are wholly untrue. If they were correct, I can assure you that 
important as administrative work may be I could accept no respon- 
sibility in a government which would mock at suggestions of Peace 
on the principles of the American President. Immediately after 
reading your article, I read the speech of the Prime Minister in 
France last Friday and if you refer to the speech you will find that 
Mr. Lloyd George said, "If the kaiser and his advisers will accept 
the conditions voiced by the president they can have peace with 
America, peace with France and peace with Great Britain to-mor- 
row." 

I trouble you with this note, because the nearer labor approaches 
an era of responsibility, the nearer labor should keep to absolute 
facts in discussing issues of such tremendous import to all of us. 



Parenthetically it may well be noted here that it was not until 
the war was won, with the general election still to come, that the 
Labour Party called its members out of the government. This, 
with the armistice signed and the general election set for December 
it did on November 14, 1918. Barnes, defeated for the Labour 



124 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

Party nomination in his own constituency, threw in his lot with 
the new Lloyd George coalition; Clynes argued in the November 
party conference against the resolution, but responded to it, with- 
drew from the coalition and campaigned for labor. [Page 269.] 

So long as Prussian militarism kept the field, as foe to the nation, 
labor kept the faith and held to the all-England alignment. Then it 
made its clean cut break with the war-time coalition in order, for 
better or worse, to enter the peace on its own footing and with its 
worker's program for national and international reconstruction. 



CHAPTER XIII 

LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 

"There are bushels of them piled up on the floor. We have never 
had such a mail," said James Middleton at the Labour Party head- 
quarters, i Victoria Street, London, the Monday following the Not- 
tingham meeting. Middleton is assistant secretary; which is official 
language for Henderson's right hand. The public will, perchance, 
never know what the labor leaders know — how much in actual exe- 
cution of their political and international offensives has hung on the 
deft ministration of this indefatigable, unobtrusive man with the 
details at his finger tips. Under various titles and in quaint dis- 
guises, you can find him and his kind if you dig deep enough into 
any organized social movement that, against all the prophets, seems 
to run on some innate momentum of its own. The bushels of mail 
were requests for copies of the report on reconstruction issued the 
week before, under the title Labour and the New Social Order} Few 
committee reports have ever so struck fire in the public imagina- 
tion at home and abroad. 

Its reprint as a supplement by the New Republic in March, 
19 1 8, led to the circulation of thousands of copies in the United 
States. It was hailed by radicals everywhere, and stimulated such 
progressive thinkers as Winston Churchill to explore the possibilities 
of an American contribution 2 which would reflect our less stratified 
social composition, and would approach the future from the stand- 
point of the community as a whole. Some of the more progressive 
labor bodies — from state federations in the far northwest to inde- 
pendent unions in New York — set out to spread the British pro- 
gram. The American Socialist Party — at the extreme left on the 
war issues — and the Social Democratic League — its pro-war off- 
shoot to the extreme right — brought out domestic platforms in ad- 
vance of the fall elections (1918), which were clearly attempts to 
parallel its success in attracting public attention. The American 
Federation of Labor, at its annual convention in June, was bare of 
any "glorious reconstruction ideal . . . painted by any word brush," 
to use Gompers' phrases, and seemed strangely inhibited from ad- 

1 Appendix IV. 

a "A Traveller in War Time" (1918). 

125 



126 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

dressing itself to the larger economic issues growing out of the 
war. Provision was made, however, for the appointment of a com- 
mittee to take up the subject of reconstruction. Similar provision 
had already been arranged for in the spring (on a joint basis for 
employers and employees) by one of the subsidiary bodies of the 
National Civic Federation, which was all of a twitter lest the 
socialists and the Bolsheviki should meddle up America after the 
war. 

In the United States, the British statement, indeed, provoked 
dissent from organizers of big business and big labor alike. In 
arranging a meeting for its discussion, the secretary of the Boston 
City Club found a copy on the desk of the president of the largest 
public service corporation in the country, swept clean of everything 
else but an inkwell and this British statement which he regarded as 
the most brilliant prospectus he had ever read, a challenge to Amer- 
ican capitalists to match it with a large scale scheme for national 
development which would counter at a tangent its revolutionary 
bent. Soon after the report was given out, the American Federa- 
tionist, the organ of the American Federation of Labor, called it 
"comprehensive, fine in spirit, tremendously hopeful in outlook." 
Americans instinctively recoil at the wording "workers by hand or by 
brain"; it rubs our democratic feeling the wrong way of the fur. 
But while resenting the "invidious distinction implied in the phrase 
used in the British document," Gompers editorially served notice 
that on this side of the water wage-earners are entirely competent 
"to determine and formulate their own policies" without alloy of 
what "in other countries" are called "the intellectuals." The Amer- 
■ ican labor movement was to be kept bona fide, and the British policy 
| of expanding and appealing to a wider constituency struck no an- 
swering chord. 

Also, in pointing out that the British document formulated the 
problems "as political issues and the agency designated is the polit- 
ical party," Gompers reaffirmed his life-long policy that wage-earn- 
ers should exert themselves through the unions rather than through 
a political labor movement. More, he has acted on the principle 
that they should not, by coming to depend too much on labor 
legislation, weaken the organized power of a strong dues-paying 
membership to bargain for standards in trade agreements. Thus, 
he has opposed agitation to secure eight hour laws (as shifting re- 
liance from the unions to the government) ; he was slow to take 
up the workmen's compensation movement in its early days, and 
he threw his weight against public schemes for sickness insurance 
— a position on which the New York State Federation of Labor, for 
example, broke with him. Underneath it all, Gompers has accepted 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 127 

the present capitalistic order, if tempered by collective bargaining. 
While resisting movements to create a labor party and preferring 
to use the potential political strength of the labor movement to force 
gains first from the Republicans and then the Democrats, he has 
consistently fought socialism and all its works. 

"The heart of the American labor movement is economic," he 
said in discussing the British Labour Party's report. "Labour's 
welfare and protection is regarded as fundamentally an economic 
problem to be dealt with by economic agencies." And again — 

The democracy of the American labor movement is of the same 
nature as that of our republic. It is more hearty, more sincere, and 
more far-reaching than the democracy of any other country. 

So the American reader finishes the document entitled Labor and 
the New Social Order with a feeling of exultation stirred by the 
hope of what the future may bring, but when he turns to concrete 
problems that must be worked out to-day and to-morrow, and through 
each day that follows, he finds little practical help for real achieve- 
ments. In the future, as in the past, we must trust in the economic 
organization of the workers. 

In Great Britain, on the contrary, as brought out in the last 
chapter, the political movement long since proved its worth to the 
minds of the workers. During a period of thirty years, the emphasis 
has swung to and fro between the economic and political fields of 
activity, as labor has been thwarted in one, or had its hopes dashed 
in the other. But out of gains, first in one direction and then in 
the other, had come reliance on the two methods — not as things 
antagonistic, but as things complementary — (a dual procedure which, 
incidentally, made a two-edged war policy fit into their habit of 
mind). 

Now, at a time when, as we shall see more clearly in later pages, 
the familiar economic machinery of collective bargaining had been 
"interned" for the war, the political arm of the labor movement 
came forward with its vigorous presentment of political action. The 
circumstances would have won for it in any case a working-class 
following far out-numbering the membership of the Labour Party. 
But with the general ferment affecting all sorts and conditions of 
men — and with no such comprehensive social program put forth 
by any of the older parties, — the labor report on reconstruction fairly 
hit the British public between the eyes. 

It came before the party conference in June after four months' 
discussion by unions, trades councils and party locals, and was 
given effect by a series of 27 resolutions. In make-up and temper, 



128 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

this June meeting made much the same impression upon the joint 
author of this book as the Nottingham meeting had made on his 
collaborator. His rough notes contained four phrases which he 
scribbled down in the thick of the conference as giving its feel to 
an outsider. These phrases were "gray hairs," "common sense," 
"win the war," "our country." 

"Gray hairs": The conference, while containing young men and 
many men still in young middle life, was for the majority made up 
of men going gray, settled, mature. For young leadership, it would 
be necessary to wait until the war was ended. 

"Common sense": The appeal that infallibly won the confer- 
ence was not to the emotions. It was not that of cleverness. It 
was the hard, plain statement of the commonsense position. Brit- 
ish labor distrusts the extremist, and this applies as much to those 
on the right, the Tory reactionary, the military Jingo, as to the 
revolutionary and the extreme pacifist. This is where American 
labor visitors made their mistake. They saw that extremists like 
the Bolshevik ambassador from abroad or Havelock Wilson of the 
British sailors received freedom of speech. The British worker 
applauds any honest, sincere statement. He gives his respect to any 
good fighter. But he gives his vote and his intellectual allegiance 
to the middle-of-the-way man who shows a working compromise. 

"Win the War": An earlier chapter brought out how this June 
meeting reaffirmed the war policy of British labor — its linking of a 
moral and political offensive with resistance to Prussian militarism 
in the field. It expressed its will to win the war, from the keynote 
opening speech of the chairman to tfre angry vigor of its resolution 
for a substantial increase in the separation allowances for the fam- 
ilies of fighting men. Nothing so stirred the wrath of the labor 
conference as the report of official slights to the discharged sol- 
diers. There were cries of shame when a delegate told of 742 
soldiers and their dependents in one district on charity under a poor 
law board of guardians. 

"Our Country": They have a great pride in their country, these 
English labor men. Underlying every sharp criticism of govern- 
ment policy was the love of the Briton for his native land. British 
labor will never be international in the sense of a disappearance of 
the instinct of nationality. 

Each of these characteristics found illustration in speeches from 
the floor by delegates. As the reconstruction plan had been before 
the constituent bodies for six months and the resolutions were 
kindred to those passed at earlier party conferences, they went 
through swiftly with little debate. Right, left and center on the 
war issues, were at one on the reconstruction program. Said Presi- 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 120 

dent Purdy (Shipconstructors and Shipwrights' Association, 33,000 
members) at the opening session: 

All plans of reconstruction, all hopes of rebuilding a better social 
and industrial life after the war, depend on one cardinal fact, and 
that is winning the war. The trade union and labor movement have 
declared that they want no inconclusive peace. This is no time to 
divide forces, whether inside or outside the party. The way to con- 
solidate the party is not by forming a new party. 

We need the industrial wing to be allied to the political wing of 
the movement. But a national party, such as is now aimed at, 
cannot be built up on a purely industrial or craft basis! A strong 
industrial organization, backed up by a strong political labor party, 
is the only hope of the workers in the future. 

Said Ramsay MacDonrld: 

We are divided on certain current issues, but not on issues of 
reconstruction. Capitalism is characterized by inefficiency and waste, 
by managers who can't manage. A pool of all the little exploita- 
tions will make a reservoir of plenty. Internationally, we are not 
out for a balance of power (as in the Whitley report in industry), 
nor for a League of Powers — but for a Society of Nations. 

These resolutions on reconstruction make no attempt to repeat 
our constitution; they are elaborate footnotes to the constitution. 

Of the reconstruction program as a whole, J. H. Thomas (Rail- 
waymen, 400,000 members) said that the workers recognized the 
miserable poverty and degradation in which they had lived in the 
past. If the nation could spend eight millions in pounds sterling a 
day in the destruction of humanity it could find some millions for 
reconstruction. He pointed out that eleven million people would 
need employment when the war ends: 

The employers will make the effort to rid themselves of abnormal 
wages. The cost of living cannot be reduced. So we shall have 

(1) a glut in the labor market. 

(2) an annual debt of six hundred million pounds. 

(3) increased cost of living. 

(4) a tendency to cut wages. 

The success of the Labour Party will depend on solving some 
of these great problems. It means the taking over of railways, 
mines, munition factories. Unrestricted competition and individual 
direction were found a menace in time of war. So we point out that 
as regards the mass of human beings they are wrong in peace. Indi- 
viduals cannot be trusted to control that of which they don't believe 
in the policy. The danger to labor is not that it will be defeated 
by strength and wealth but by intrigues of its own. 



i 3 o THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

labor's plan for reconstruction 

Report and resolutions are published in the appendix to this 
book. 1 The former must be read in full to get the sweep and spirit 
of its message. No attempt can be made here to debate the main 
propositions, ranging as they do over the entire field of economics 
and domestic affairs, just as no attempt was made earlier to debate 
British labor policy with respect, for example, to disarmament of 
the Balkans. Our task is the simpler one of interpreting the gen- 
eral development and intention of the movement. But to do that 
it is necessary to grasp its approach to the common task of recon- 
struction, as put in the smashing indictment which opened the docu- 
ment: 

We need to beware of patchwork. The view of the Labour Party 
is that what has to be reconstructed after the war is not this or that 
government department, or this or that piece of social machinery; 
but, so far as Britain is concerned, society itself. The individual 
worker, or for that matter the individual statesman, immersed in 
daily routine — like the individual soldier in a battle — easily fails 
to understand the magnitude and far-reaching importance of what 
is taking place around him. How does it fit together as a whole? 
How does it look from a distance? Count Okuma, one of the oldest, 
most experienced and ablest of the statesmen of Japan, watching the 
present conflict from the other side of the globe, declares it to be 
nothing less than the death of European civilization. Just as in the 
past the civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Carthage and the 
great Roman Empire have been successively destroyed, so, in the 
judgment of this detached observer, the civilization of all Europe 
is even now receiving its death-blow. We of the Labour Party 
can so far agree in this estimate as to recognize, in the present world 
catastrophe, if not the death, in Europe, of civilization itself, at 
any rate, the culmination and collapse of a distinctive industrial 
civilization, which the workers will not seek to reconstruct. At 
such times of crisis it is easier to slip into ruin than to progress into 
higher forms or organizations. That is the problem as it presents 
itself to the Labour Party to-day. 

What this war is consuming is not merely the security, the homes, 
the livelihood and the lives of millions of innocent families, and an 
enormous proportion of all the accumulated wealth of the world, 
but also the very basis of the peculiar social order in which it has 
arisen. The individualist system of capitalist production, based on 
the private ownership and competitive administration of land and 
capital, with its reckless "profiteering" and wage-slavery; with its 
glorification of the unhampered struggle for the means of life and 
its hypocritical pretence of the "survival of the fittest"; with the 

1 Report, Appendix IV ; resolutions, Appendix V. 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 131 

monstrous inequality of circumstances which it produces and the 
degradation and brutalization, both moral and spiritual, resulting 
therefrom, may, we hope, indeed have received a death-blow. With 
it must go the political system and ideas in which it naturally found 
expression. We of the Labour Party, whether in opposition or in 
due time called upon to form an administration, will certainly lend 
no hand to its revival. On the contrary, we shall do our utmost to 
see that it is buried with the millions whom it has done to death. 
If we in Britain are to escape from the decay of civilization itself, 
which the Japanese statesman foresees, we must insure that what 
is presently to be built up is a new social order, based not on fight- 
ing but on fraternity — not on the competitive struggle for the means 
of bare life, but on a deliberately planned cooperation in produc- 
tion and distribution for the benefit of all who participate by hand 
or by brain — not on the utmost possible inequality of riches, but on 
a systematic approach towards a healthy equality of material cir- 
cumstances for every person born into the world — not on an en- 
forced dominion over subject nations, subject races, subject colonies, 
subject classes, or a subject sex, but, in industry, as well as in 
government, on that equal freedom, that general consciousness of 
consent, and that widest possible participation in power, both eco- 
nomic and political, which is characteristic of democracy. We do 
not, of course, pretend that it is possible, even after the drastic clear- 
ing away that is now going on, to build society anew in a year or 
two of feverish "Reconstruction." What the Labour Party intends 
to satisfy itself about is that each brick that it helps to lay shall go 
to erect the structure that it intends, and no other. 

What, then, do the British workers stand for in building their 
new house "upon the common foundation of the democratic control 
of society in all its activities"? 

They stand in the first place for some things on which the gen- 
eral American public would back them up without question. 

They stand for free public education — and they stand for it for 
the children of the whole working class — for all the children of 
Great Britain. Secondary and higher schools are not free schools 
in England. The elementary schools are inadequate in numbers, 
teachers, curriculum. The workers are out for an educational sys- 
tem comparable with the best America has to offer from kinder- 
garten to university, free, public, as a basis for fitting the oncom- 
ing generation of British workers to run England. 

They are out for a ministry of health and a radical reorganiza- 
tion of the whole scheme of building up the physical fitness of their 
own kind, such as the recruiting experience had shown was all too 
much needed. They stand out, to use Sidney Webb's phrase, "for 
the universal enforcement of the national minimum;" for the 
strengthening of the factory, compensation and insurance acts gov- 



132 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

erning hours, health, unemployment and the like: in other words, 
to lay a floor of standards beneath which no industrial operations 
shall be carried on in England. They stand for giving an entirely 
new embodiment to home life among the workers of Great Britain 
by far-reaching housing and city building schemes, and they speak 
in terms of a million new cottages and an outlay of three million 
sterling for rehousing in mining villages, rural districts and town 
slums. 

They sensed an attempt to reduce wages when the troops come 
home, to take advantage of the dislocation of demobilization to 
worsen the conditions of employment and to leave to private char- 
ity the handling of unemployment. They call for a revolution of 
the poor law and for deliberate national organization to meet unem- 
ployment in advance, by public works in housing, school building, 
transport and road building, afforestation and the breaking up of 
great estates into cooperative small holdings; by raising the school- 
leaving age to sixteen, by shortening the hours of labor of young 
persons and by initiating the universal eight-hour day. 

In the political field, the party stands for the complete removal 
of all the wartime restrictions on "freedom of speech, freedom of 
publication, freedom of the press, freedom of travel, freedom of 
choice of place of residence, and freedom of employment the day 
after peace is declared." To quote a speaker on the floor of the 
June conference: 

A man with his hand crippled has been in prison for two years 
for refusing military examination, because he is a conscientious 
objector. He is now doing time in a stone quarry. When the names 
of our heroes at the front are placed on a monument in some fair 
square of the city, may the names of the conscientious objectors be 
there, beside them. 

It cannot be said the workers as a whole understood or sympathized 
with the principles of the conscientious objectors, much less shared 
their feelings. But they understood and were aroused by the treat- 
ment accorded them in prison. That awakened old echoes of the 
treatment accorded labor leaders in the long struggle for the right 
to organize, and it provoked the quick recognition that without 
their organized power, their own strike leaders in wartime would 
have been handled no differently. 

In the debates at the June conference, working-class resistance to 
any attempt to carry over military methods into the industrial life, 
or perpetuate them under a peace economy was voiced by W. C. 
Anderson, member of Parliament from the Independent Labour 
Party (left): 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 133 

The new spirit requires new machinery, and labor ought to give 
a clear lead. The military service acts are being used more and more 
for industrial conscription. Labor must conquer the government, 
Labor must be the government. Labor must make the laws, not for 
a small section, but for the whole community. 

He spoke of the new grades of military service for the ages of 
forty-one years to fifty-one years: 

They believe they will be sent to the front. The government says 
to them, "If you will place yourselves in our power and be sent 
anywhere we say, you will be exempted from military service." This 
is industrial compulsion. Either they should be sent into the army 
or be left free as a civilian. 

Labor is of one mind with respect to peace time conscription, 
military no less than industrial. It took its stand against "any 
continuation of the military service acts a moment longer than the 
imperative requirements of the war excuse." 

But "individual freedom is of little use without complete polit- 
ical rights." The Labour Party 

sees its repeated demands largely conceded in the present representa- 
tion of the people act, but not yet wholly satisfied. The party stands, 
as heretofore, for complete adult suffrage . . . effective provision 
for absent electors to vote, for absolutely equal rights for both sexes, 
for the same freedom to exercise civic rights for the common soldier 
as for the officer, for shorter parliaments, for the complete abolition 
of the House of Lords, and for a most strenuous opposition to any 
new second chamber, whether elected or not, having in it any ele- 
ment of heredity or privilege, or of the control of the House of 
Commons by any party or class. 

Labor stands for absolute autonomy of each self-governing part 
of the Empire, for "home rule all around," and for an imperial 
council which would express the democratized spirit of "the Bri- 
tannic Alliance." 

We now come to the larger economic proposals on which there 
is bound to be much friction. "What the nation needs is undoubt- 
edly a great bound onward on its aggregate productivity." But 
this to labor's mind 

cannot be secured merely by pressing the manual workers to more 
strenuous toil, or even by encouraging the "Captains of Industry" 
to a less wasteful organization of their several enterprises on a 
profit-making basis. 

What the Labour Party looks to is: 



134 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

A genuinely scientific reorganization of the nation's industry, no 
longer deflected by individual profiteering, on the basis of the com- 
mon ownership of the means of production; the equitable sharing 
of the proceeds among all who participate in any capacity and only 
among these, and the adoption, in particular services and occupa- 
tions, of those systems and methods of administration and control 
that may be found, in practice, best to promote, not profiteering, 
but the public interest. 

To this end the party stands "not merely for the principle of 
common ownership of the nation's land, but for a unified national 
service of communication and transport, to be worked unhampered 
by capitalist, private, or purely local interests (and with a steadily 
increasing participation of the organized workers in the manage- 
ment, both central and local) exclusively for the common good"; 
for the erection of a score of gigantic super-power stations, "which 
would generate, at incredibly cheap rates, enough electricity for the 
use of every industrial establishment and every private household in 
Great Britain"; for "the immediate nationalization of mines, the 
extraction of coal and iron being worked as a public service (with 
a steadily increasing participation in the management, both central 
and local, of the various grades of persons employed)." The work- 
ers want household coal of standard quality, at "a fixed and uni- 
form price for the whole kingdom, payable by rich and poor alike, 
as unalterable as the penny postage stamp." Similarly, they advo- 
cate the expropriation of the profit-making industrial insurance 
companies which "now so tyrannously exploit the people with their 
wasteful house-to-house industrial life assurance," and they advo- 
cate local option and "taking the entire manufacture and retailing 
of alcoholic drink out of the hands of those who find profit in pro- 
moting the utmost possible consumption." 

The party takes ground against allowing the government con- 
trol over the importations of wheat, wool, metals and other com- 
modities to "slip back into the unfettered control of private cap- 
italists, who are, actually at the instance of the government itself, 
now rapidly combining, trade by trade, into monopolist trusts, 
which may presently become as ruthless in their extortion as the 
worst American examples." To quote: 

Standing, as it does, for the democratic control of industry, the 
Labour Party would think twice before it sanctioned any abandon- 
ment of the present profitable centralization of purchase of raw 
material; of the present carefully organized "rationing" by joint 
committees of the trades concerned, of the several establishments 
with the materials they require; of the present elaborate system of 
"costing" and public audit of manufacturers' accounts, so as to stop 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 135 

the waste heretofore caused by the mechanical inefficiency of the 
more backward firms; of the present salutary publicity of manufac- 
turing processes and expenses hereby insured ; and, on the informa- 
tion thus obtained (in order never again to revert to the old time 
profiteering), of the present rigid fixing, for standardized products, 
of maximum prices at the factory, at the warehouse of the whole- 
sale trader and in the retail shop. 

Labor holds that it is just as much the function of the government 
to protect private consumers as to protect, through the factory- 
acts, the wage earning producers. 

To provide the revenue to meet the cost of the war and to make 
the constructive investment for national production outlined, the 
Labour Party repudiates all proposals for a protective tariff, strenu- 
ously opposes any taxation which would increase the price of food, 
and objects to any taxes interfering with production, commerce, 
transport or communication. Rather, it turns its eyes on the hold- 
ings of what it describes as "that one-tenth of the population which 
owns nine-tenths of the riches of the United Kingdom." It would 
extend the Excess Profits Tax, increase the Mineral Rights Duty 
and bring "the steadily rising unearned increment of urban and 
mineral land . . . wholly . . . into the public exchequer." It 
stands for paying off the national debt by the direct taxation of 
private fortunes both during life and after death. It proposes to 
rearrange the "whole taxation of inheritance from the standpoint 
of asking what is the maximum amount that any rich man should 
be permitted at death to divert by his will from the national ex- 
chequer which should normally be the heir of all private riches in 
excess of a quite moderate amount by way of family provision." 
It stands for a special capital levy to pay off a very substantial part 
of the entire national debt. 1 It stands, in fine, for taking over the 

1 When the issue of conscription of wealth was raised by labor it met 
with a striking response from the leader of the Unionist party. Bonar 
Law, Chancellor of the Exchequer, was quoted in the London Times of 
December 26, 1917, as saying: "I am inclined to take this view that we 
ought to aim at making this burden (of national debt) one which will 
rest practically on the wealth that has been created and is in existence at 
the time the war comes to an end, so that it would not be there as a 
handicap on the creation of new wealth after the war. The question of 
whether or not there should be conscription of wealth, then, is entirely a 
matter of expediency. In my opinion, it is simply a question of whether 
it will pay them [the wealthy classes] best, and pay the country best, to 
have a general capital levy, and reduce the national debt as far as you 
can, or have it continued for 50 years as a constant burden of taxation. 
My own feeling is that it would be better, both for the wealthy classes 
and the country, to have this levy of capital, and reduce the burden of the 
national debt." 



136 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

national surplus — whether piled up in the past or created currently 
— as new social capital. 

Such a revolution in national finance would provoke bitter antag- 
onisms. Probably no other single plank in the labor platform is 
so hotly disputed. The capitalistic order of society in its untram- 
meled form would disappear under the rigorous applications of this 
new "democratic finance." It is its proposals for the conscription of 
wealth which distinguishes the labor platform most clearly from the 
platform of the Tory state socialists, like Lord Milner, the Prussian- 
Australians, like Hughes, and the old-line Liberals, like Asquith. 

In contrast to the picture of Old England drawn at the outset, 
the British workers' document put the vision of the England they 
were fighting for: 

In the disposal of the surplus above the standard of life society 
has hitherto gone as far wrong as in its neglect to secure the neces- 
sary basis of any genuine industrial efficiency or decent social order. 
We have allowed the riches of our mines, the rental value of the 
lands superior to the margin of cultivation, the extra profits of the 
fortunate capitalists, even the material outcome of scientific discov- 
eries — which ought by now to have made this Britain of ours im- 
mune from class poverty or from any widespread destitution — to be 
absorbed by individual proprietors; and then devoted very largely 
to the senseless luxury of an idle rich class. Against this misappro- 
priation of the wealth of the community, the Labour Party — speak- 
ing in the interests not of the wage-earners alone, but of every grade 
and section of producers by hand or by brain, not to mention also 
those of the generations that are to succeed us, and of the perma- 
nent welfare of the community — emphatically protests. One main 
pillar of the house that the Labour Party intends to build is the 
future appropriation of the surplus, not to the enlargement of any 
individual fortune, but to the common good. It is from this con- 
stantly arising surplus (to be secured, on the one hand, by nation- 
alization and municipalization and, on the other, by the steeply grad- 
uated taxation of private income and riches) that will have to be 
found the new capital which the community day by day needs for 
the perpetual improvement and increase of its various enterprises, 
for which we shall decline to be dependent on the usury-exacting 
financiers. 

It is from the same source that has to be defrayed the pub- 
lic provision for the sick and infirm of all kinds (including that 
for maternity and infancy) which is still so scandalously insufficient; 
for the aged and those prematurely incapacitated by accident or 
disease, now in many ways so imperfectly cared for, for the educa- 
tion alike of children of adolescents and of adults, in which the 
Labour Party demands a genuine equality of opportunity, overcom- 
ing all differences of material circumstances; and for the organiza- 
tion of public improvements of all kinds, including the brightening 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 137 

of the lives of those now condemned to almost ceaseless toil, and a 
great development of the means of recreation. From the same source 
must come the greatly increased public provision that the Labour 
Party will insist on being made for scientific investigation and orig- 
inal research, in every branch of knowledge, not to say also for the 
promotion of music, literature and fine art, which have been under 
capitalism so greatly neglected, and upon which, so the Labour 
Party holds, any real development of civilization fundamentally 
depends. 

Society, like the individual, does not live by bread alone — does 
not exist only for perpetual wealth production. It is in the pro- 
posal for this appropriation of every surplus for the Common Good 
— in the vision of its resolute use for the building up of the com- 
munity as a whole instead of for the magnification of individual 
fortunes — that the Labour Party, as the Party of the Producers 
by hand or by brain, most distinctively marks itself off from the 
older political parties, standing, as these do, essentially for the main- 
tenance, unimpaired, of the perpetual private mortgage upon the 
annual product of the nation that is involved in the individual owner- 
ship of land and capital. 



Of course many of these proposals were not new. The capital 
levy was more startling, but land reform, workmen's compensation, 
re-housing and the like were pushed by Lloyd George and Asquith 
piece-meal under the old liberal regime ; the war had written unheard- 
of tax laws. The industrial minimums were very similar to those of 
the Progressive Party platform six years before in the United States. 
Socialist parties in a score of countries have belabored as hard or 
harder the infelicities of the system of private capitalism. But 
here we had, as distinct from pre-war liberal procedure, a rounded 
program; and as distinct from the socialist procedure, one on which 
the general voter was asked to join, not on the basis of subscribing 
to a creed but on the basis of objective, particular measures. 

It was, however, the kick behind it which gave the Labour Party 
program its hearing — the realization that England would not go 
back to the old loose-jointed scheme of things after the war, that 
there was tremendous industrial unrest throughout the Kingdom 
and that there were many indications that the soldiers were coming 
back in a temper to join forces with the workers. 

Announcement was made at the June conference that the Labour 
Party would contest 400 seats for the next Parliament. As the 
labor leaders saw it, they were confronted with something more 
dynamic than a contest with the historic English parties — with pros- 
pect of nothing less than a new political formation under the Premier. 
The situation was summed up by a radical labor leader in this way: 



138 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

Lloyd George's old associates in the labor movement mistrust 
him, so that it is scarcely likely that he can win them back again 
as his followers. He has no temperamental commonality with the 
Tories, and they would not be displeased if he were not so for- 
midable a figure in domestic affairs after the war. The liberals 
accuse him of treachery to Asquith and the first raters among them 
did not go into his cabinet. There remains his personal following 
and when you realize that some 35,000 people have been added to 
the newly created orders, you can see that that is not inconsiderable 
as a nucleus for a new party. Lloyd George lacks everything just 
now but courage. 

— Courage, yes, and a widespread public conviction that however 
you disagreed with him or his colleagues, he, as no other man in 
England, could marshal her forces against Germany — if the war 
were still on; the prestige of the great war leader — if it were suc- 
cessfully ended; the backing, in either case, of the great interests 
built up during the war, the suction-force of a khaki election, and 
the prowess of the most redoubtable campaigner the English radical 
movement ever produced. No mean rival, in truth, if personality 
rather than platform were to be the test. 

What could be attempted in those war months was to gauge cer- 
tain of the currents at work in the British citizenship which would 
continue regardless of the outcome of the then anticipated election 
and which would tend, during a period of years, to strengthen rather 
than weaken the labor representation. For out of office, only less 
than in, the influence of the labor movement on post-bellum domestic 
and foreign policy will be augmented many- fold. 

With respect to the wage-earners themselves, we have seen in the 
more active partnership of the British Labour Party and the Trades 
Union Congress a muster of organized labor which in numbers and 
unity exceeded anything in the past. The position held by Clynes 
in their counsels is a symbol of the great mass of unskilled general 
workers now ranged alongside the skilled trades. The spread of 
the great industrial organizations, such as the miners, embracing 
skilled and unskilled alike, is a response to the same forces, and in 
a succeeding chapter we shall see how the miners have in the course 
of the war come to subscribe to state ownership of industry coupled 
with workers' participation in the management. Every labor con- 
ference of 1918 bore testimony in the debates from the floor that 
the socialists of the right (who have stood for a strong war policy) 
had not swallowed the government's home policy. If anything, 
some of the trade unionists of the right were in their savage crit- 
icism of the government and their radical proposals more sweeping 
than socialists of the left. 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 139 



THE RETURNED SOLDIERS 

With respect to the returned soldiers, the point of view of not 
a few detached observers was expressed by an English Y. M. C. A. 
worker in London, whose work brought him into personal relation- 
ship with thousands of men in khaki. He cited the Premier's famous 
remark that drink was a worse enemy to England than was Germany, 
and (in spite of the fact that many of the conservative labor men 
had advised against war time prohibition — lest it lead to a divided 
country), he reckoned the failure of the ministry to act at all 
as one of the strong counts against it. He felt that the men in 
the ranks hoped that they would come back to a changed England, 
to start in again on a higher plane of living and better conditions. 
If England wasn't changed, then, with the drag of trench life, 
and the general physical and mental reaction from the war, they 
would in the course of two or three months slip back into the old 
way of living. 

"Will they come back revolutionists?" he was asked. They 
had been through this mill for their common country. When they 
came back would they be content to find that it wasn't common 
after all; that men who had borne the brunt equally came back to 
very unequal portions? 

They would not be revolutionists, he answered, because the 
English are the greatest grousing nation on the face of the earth; 
they all talk revolution, but nobody revolves. They are a phleg- 
matic people. But under it all the soldiers were in key with the 
working class feeling. 

"How was this?" he was asked. "Have the labor unions been 
allowed to carry on propaganda among the soldiers at the front?" 

"No," he said. "And the soldiers know that; and that is one 
of the reasons why." 

"But most of the papers talk in a very different strain. They 
don't publish things from the labor angle." 

"No," he said, "and the soldiers know that, too, and that is 
another reason." 

The labor movement, he believed, would be for temperance, not 
prohibition; it would be for radical changes in the distribution of 
wealth; and the soldiers would be with the workers. More espe- 
cially, they would be for having a say and a big say in the gov- 
ernment. England had been governed by squires and the propertied 
classes. The contention had been that the man who did not own 
land, did not have a stake in the country, and should not have the 
say. Now the soldiers would come back at them. "Because you 
hold the land your grandfather got," they would put it, "you say 



i 4 o THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

you have a stake in the country. Well, we've been through this 
hell for four years, and that gives us a stake, and we are going to 
use it." 

There was a new spirit among the conservative classes, too, he 
concluded. The younger men had been out at the war and knew 
the Tommies; and the Tommies knew them. They had a feeling 
toward each other which would be a great tempering influence. But 
it would not stand in the way of the soldiers taking things into 
their own hands, and setting about a mighty shift in the scheme of 
English life after the war. 

Which is putting in another way the point of the English fight- 
ing man returned from the Boer war, as Kipling wrote it down: 

An' I'm rollin' 'is lawns for the Squire, 

Me! 

THE WOMEN WORKERS 

Along with its appeal to the soldiers and workers, through special 
legislation and through its program for the democratization of 
Wealth, the Labour Party set out to reach the new women workers. 
And the hundreds of thousands of old unionists in the army are 
matched by tens of thousands of new unionists among the hundreds 
of thousands of new wage-earning women. 1 

In 19 1 8, the British Trades Union Congress elected Margaret 
Bondfield to membership on its parliamentary committee — a status 
hitherto unaccorded an English woman and one not yet paralleled 
in America. Slight, dark, deft and direct in speech, Miss Bondfield 
is a foil, physically, to another leader of English women unionists, 
better known in the United States. Tall, blonde, vehement, Mary 
Macarthur (Mrs. W. C. Anderson) stands out a colorful figure 
from the cornice of the lions in a mass meeting in Trafalgar Square 
or among a knot of working girls in an industrial town. Miss Bond- 
field is a member of the executive of the Independent Labour Party, 
but it is for her rise from the ranks as an organizer, her self-schooled 
grasp of underlying issues, her radical social insight and her tactical 
skill that she is known in the labor movement — qualities which do 
not in themselves convey any hint of the charm of her face and per- 
sonality, or of that unfagged energy of a girl ambulance driver 
which is hers. 

In interpreting the woman's movement in industry, Miss Bond- 
field divided in into three parts — distributive, industrial and political. 

*Mary Macarthur estimated in 1918 that, of the 4,500,000 wage earning 
women in commerce and industry in Great Britain, 750,000 were enrolled 
in trade unions. 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 141 

The women's part in the distributive field dates back to the 
early stages of the cooperative movement. The only qualification 
for membership in its woman's guilds is to be a member of a co- 
operative society. Often a president is a middle class woman, but 
for the most part they are working women. They have been a 
real leaven in the cooperative movement — forward-looking, keeping 
it abreast of the times in political aims, sane on the war, and the 
push behind the agitation for maternity-care in Great Britain. While 
there are only a few leaders whose names are known the 
country over, there are hundreds of first rate women who are strong 
in their districts, and who are turned to whenever the progressive 
group in a community are looking, for example, for a woman mem- 
ber on a board of guardians or local council. 

The Woman's Trade Union League dates back even further — 
to the early '70's, and carries us to a little known chapter in the 
woman's movement in the United States. Susan B. Anthony and 
Lucy Larcom were interested in the organization of working women. 
Miss Anthony, to be sure, was a pioneer in woman's rights, rather 
than in economic reform. She approached the question from a 
middle class rather than a labor point of view. She was interested 
in getting an opportunity for women to be self-supporting and 
did not meet the position of the unions by standing out for equal 
wages. They regarded her efforts as playing into the hands of the 
employers and the movement in America did not last. But an Eng- 
lish woman, Miss Patterson, who visited America, saw the organized 
groups of umbrella workers and type setters, returned to England 
and started the Woman's Trade Union League, which, in the course 
of years, as a piece of international reciprocity, became the inspira- 
tion of the corresponding American league. Since the outbreak of 
the war, the British movement has grown with great rapidity. Mary 
Macarthur is secretary. It is a federation which looks after legis- 
lation affecting women workers, and does general propaganda. The 
men's unions are, many of them, organizing women, but do not 
always need a full time organizer. The league serves them as well 
as carries on its own organizing work. 

It found numerous cases where no existing labor organization 
would claim or want women doing particular occupations. There 
were not enough of them to organize into separate unions, and the 
men did not want them in. This led to the organization of the 
National Federation of Working Women, not a federation but a 
union affiliated to the league like the other women's unions. Miss 
Macarthur is honorary secretary; Miss Bondfield, general organ- 
izer. This union has more than three times the members it had 
at the outset of the war. It organized many of the women in the 



H2 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

munitions trades, although only a fraction of the great number 
who swelled the industry. Its general position is to claim equal pay 
for equal work, and it has the very great advantage that it is in 
touch with the men's skilled trades. This has given it standing at 
a time when other labor bodies have been bidding for membership. 

The Workers' Union is one of the organizations of unskilled 
and semi-skilled, representative of several. It will take in any 
worker, man or woman; but its members and organizers are familiar 
only with the rates and standards of the lower grades. Thus, in 
one district, women were introduced as crane operators and the 
Workers' Union, appearing before the munitions arbitration tribunal, 
asked for and got only thirty-two shillings a week — the unskilled 
rate. A short time later, the federation took up similar cases, main- 
tained this was skilled work and got the full rate of fifty-two shil- 
lings. 

So the federation includes skilled operators getting £6 to £7 a 
week at piece rates — women taken in to fill men's places — and girls 
who came under the munitions wage act and who may get scarcely 
more than double that number of shillings. It is to a degree an 
anomalous organization, but full of potentialities, and has certain 
advantages when the whole trade union movement is in the boiling 
pot, and in every branch and local there is discussion of how to 
reorganize the union movement .0 meet the situation after the war. 
As certain women leaders see it, the conflict in post-bellum days, 
growing out of "dilution," will be between the skilled and the un- 
skilled, who have been brought in; as others see it the conflict will 
be primarily along sex lines unless trade board acts, factory regula- 
tions and national minimums lift unskilled women workers to the 
same level as that of unskilled men. 

This steady work of organization, which is bringing greater and 
greater numbers of women wage-earners into touch with the organ- 
ized labor movement, is supplemented by a political evangel. The 
Labour Party elected four women to its executive in June. A 
woman officer and two national women organizers were appointed 
to assist constituent organizations. The Women's Labour League 
agreed to a procedure at the Nottingham Conference by which it 
was thereafter to assist in the formation of women's sections of the 
local labor parties, and its journal, Labour Women, was taken over 
by the party. Through discussion, classes for organizers, and dis- 
trict conferences of women's sections, a general missionary work 
among the new voters was instituted. The relations of the Labour 
Party to the general suffrage movement is indicated by the follow- 
ing resolution adopted by the annual council (19 18) of the Na- 
tional Union of Women's Suffrage Societies: 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 143 

That on the occasion of the passing of the Representation of 
the People Bill into law, this Council of the National Union of 
Women's Suffrage Societies, desires to send a message of hearty 
thanks to the Labour Party for their steady and consistent support 
of the Cause of Women's Suffrage in times past, and assures them 
of the firm intention of the N. U. W. S. to continue to work for the 
further enfranchisement of women on the same terms as it is or 
may be granted to men. 

Similarly, the Labour Party set about enlisting not only indi- 
viduals but groups hitherto outside the labor movement. Follow- 
ing the change in the constitution in February, it received applica- 
tions from organizations which could not be classed as either trade 
union or socialist societies, and in June the executive asked for 
discretionary power to affiliate them. They ranged from political 
and propagandist bodies to professional associations catering to 
various sections of government employees, such as manual training 
teachers, uncertificated assistant teachers, and various clerical 
groups. 

The full muster of the rapidly swelling ranks of trade unionism, 
vast reaches of unskilled workers hitherto unorganized, the civilian 
army, the wage-earning women, the women of the working class, 
professional groups — these then, and large numbers of the general 
population, labor is out to enlist. How far it is able to swing 
not only the wage earners as a body but outside groups, depends 
not alone on its program. Obviously the tendency will be for the 
older parties to match it on man}' of its points, and the Labour 
Party in turn to outflank them by further and more radical pro- 
posals. Rather, the question will be, how far vast numbers of the 
population come to feel that it is only through the Labour Party 
that they can secure accomplishment. Here the experience of the 
cooperative movement is significant. 

THE COOPERATOES 

The government clearly added to labor's voting strength by sub- 
jecting the dividends of the Co-operative Societies to the excess 
profits tax, and by repeated attempts to bring Co-operative dividends 
within the scope of the income tax. As a result, the Co-operative 
Wholesale Society and the Co-operative Union, representing three 
and one-half million members, within the year, allied themselves for 
political action with the Labour Party. 

The first food controller was Lord Davenport, a wholesale grocer, 
and to him the cooperatives attributed the attempt to apply the 
war profits tax to the annual surpluses of the cooperatives. No 



144 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

doubt there were those in the government who regarded these as 
merely a likely source of revenue. But the cooperatives are not 
organized for profit. They distribute their surpluses among their 
members, largely working people, in order to cut down their cost of 
living and eliminate the very profit taking which the government 
tried to scoop in. It was an easy matter for them to meet the raid 
by simply reducing the prices to their members, and show no profits 
at the end of the year that could fall in the government's hopper; 
which they did. But the cooperatives felt that the whole thing was 
a put-up job of the competing commercial interests to cripple them. 
Lloyd George's backing of the taxation scheme identified him with 
the move. The cooperatives washed their hands of the Liberal party, 
with which they had in the past been historically a clientele, and 
announced that, in order to protect their rights in the future and 
no less project the principle of cooperation in the period of recon- 
struction, they would enter politics as an organized body, run candi- 
dates for Parliament in certain districts at the next election, and 
work with the working class political movement. At the October, 
19 1 7, conference of cooperators, it was agreed that the aims were 
closer unity between the cooperative and the trade union movements, 
working-class funds to be used for working-class ideals, the cooper- 
ative societies to be the food stores for trade unionists who downed 
tools at strike time. W. H. Watkins, the Plymouth cooperator, 
said: 

There are twenty millions directly associated with the two move- 
ments — cooperation and trade unionism. 

Arthur Henderson, speaking to the cooperators at this confer- 
ence, said: 

One point on which we all should be determined is that when this 
war is terminated we shall see that the "have nots" receive a greater 
opportunity. We should take steps to lessen the number of sections 
into which democracy has been divided. I shall be prepared that 
the Labour Party as now known should cease to exist, if by so 
doing we could combine the whole of the democracy into a great 
people's party. 

The conference unanimously adopted a draft scheme for coop- 
erative parliamentary and municipal representation, and a resolu- 
tion of policy was also unanimously carried, declaring the desire of 
the conference to mark its entrance into the political arena with a 
definite expression of general policy of industrial, social, and eco- 
nomic reform, which included the following aims: 



LABOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 145 

to safeguard the interests of voluntary cooperation; 

to resist legislative or administrative inequality so that, eventu- 
ally, the processes of production, distribution, and exchange shall be 
directed to the state; 

to eliminate the profiteers or private and other speculators; 

to secure compulsory housing of the people; 

to recast the system of education on national lines, affording 
equal opportunity for the higher education of all; 

to effect Parliamentary control of foreign policy; 

to break down caste and class systems; 

to democratize state services; 

to abolish taxes on foodstuffs; 

to develop agriculture; 

to establish a national credit bank to facilitate the development 
of trade; 

to gradually demobilize soldiers and sailors from the army and 
navy corresponding with the needs of employment. 

A Joint Committee was later formed, consisting of representatives 
of the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress, the 
Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, and the 
Labour Party Executive. 

So we have the Trades Union Congress, with four million mem- 
bers, the British Labour Party with over two and one-half million 
members, and the Co-operatives with three and one-half million 
members, compacted for political action. 

Since each member of the latter represents a family group 
(though the three organizations draw on the same families for the 
most part), this may well mean that two-fifths of the people of 
Great Britain and Ireland by mid-1918 were beginning to unite for 
political action. Such a process of social integration is gradual. 
The war unquestionably speeded it up — so much so as to give rise 
to prophesies of early success in terms of Parliamentary seats as 
numerous as seats contested. On the contrary, Alfred Zimmern of 
the Workers' Educational Association believes that the war caught 
labor twenty years ahead of its time of coming to power. Robert 
Smillie, head of the Miners, has stated that he looks for a labor 
government in ten years. 

The engineer of this new alliance, with its invitation to an incal- 
culable general following in the electorate, is the British Labour 
Party, the foundations of which, as we have seen, rest in trade 
unionism. It stands, four-square, against inequality of circum- 
stance and opportunity. It fights against unbridled competition. 
It aims at cooperation. It plans to establish a standard of living. 
It advocates self-government in industry. Its main concern is 
with the distribution of the national wealth. It will interfere in- 



i 4 6 THE ENGLAND THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR 

creasingly with the present unequal distribution of the community's 
production. It is committed to a policy of collectivism. The pro- 
tectionists, the imperialists, the reactionaries, the idle rich, the 
great landlords, do well to fear the rising power of the British 
Labour Party, for it is determined to construct a new social order. 
It has outgrown tinkering and patch-work, welfare devices and tepid 
social reforms. It has outlived an era of gentle compromises with 
Liberal industrialists. It has the flame of a new vision of life and 
labor, and it has the scientific method which the gathered and social- 
ized intelligence of many workers by hand and brain has brought 
to its reconstruction program. 

Briefly, the aims which gave it rebirth in 191 8 were: to win the 
war, to establish a working-class diplomacy and a democratic peace, 
to become a national party and so to become the government, and 
to found a new England. 

With these aims, it makes its appeal to the workers, the soldiers, 
the commoners of our day. Kipling perhaps wove a greater proph- 
ecy than he wot in his lines on "The Return" twenty years ago: 

Peace is declared, an' I return 

To 'Ackneystadt, but not the same; 
Things 'ave transpired which made me learn 

The size and meanin' of the game. 
I did no more than others did, 

1 don't know where the change began; 
I started as a average kid, 

I finished as a thinkin' man. 
If England was what England seems 

An' not the England of our dreams, 
But only putty, brass, an' paint, 

'Ow quick we'd drop er! But she ain't I 



PART VI 
CONCLUSION 



CHAPTER XIV 

THE SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 

The swing toward the left in British labor, which we have followed 
in its organized front in foreign and domestic politics, showed itself 
still earlier in the economic field in the new movements for workers' 
control. 

We have long had outreachings toward democracy in indus- 
try in the thrust of craft unionism, in the socialist movement for 
state ownership of the means of production, in the more recent 
syndicalist movement for producer's ownership. But there is some- 
thing at work in England which can be differentiated from all three. 
It is manifesting itself spontaneously in the insurgency of the shop- 
stewards. It is manifesting itself organically in the rise of indus- 
trial unionism. It is manifesting itself deliberately in the recom- 
mendations by the Whitley Committee for industrial councils which 
have been adopted by the British government as the basis for its 
policy for industrial reconstruction; and deliberately, also, in the 
plans of far-sighted employers and the propaganda of the guild- 
socialists. These manifestations will in turn be the subjects of 
this and two succeeding chapters. 

The rise of the shop stewards is laid in the engineering trades 
— the machinists, as we know them in America; the munition- 
makers, as the war cast them in a new role. In that new role, the 
women workers have been their understudies; and the fortunes of 
the two are, willy nilly, bound up together. 

Yet, in a sense, the shop steward is offspring of the "father" (or 
as we call him, chairman) of the printers' chapel, an institution 
older than unionism itself. By usage dating back to Caxton's time, 
the oldest journeyman printer has represented his fellows in taking 
up things with the management. 

At various stages in British industrial history, rough and ready 
shop leaders have played their part. Before the war, the Amal- 
gamated Society of Engineers (A. S. E.) had established stewards 
in various plants. They were the men who looked out for the inter- 
ests of the union in the particular shop. They would ask a new 
man to show his union card and, if he had none and refused to join, 
then it would be made uncomfortable for him by the other union- 

149 



150 WORKERS' CONTROL 

ists. The shop stewards would get together temporary shop com- 
mittees to take up some plant grievance with the employer. The 
shop stewards were often fired offhand by the management if they 
were found out. While they were unremunerated save for perhaps 
a few shillings a quarter for turning in their reports, and while they 
stood a chance of dismissal, the prestige of their position and their 
fidelity to the union made it characteristic of the stewards that they 
were usually the most responsible, biggest-calibered men about the 
works. Finally, the practice reached a stage when the A. S. E. 
undertook to guarantee these men their wages for a year, or until 
they found employment elsewhere, if they were discharged for union 
activity. This led to the spread of the movement and under war 
conditions it went ahead even more rapidly. 

There were several causes for this. As we shall see, the first 
year of the war the national unions (miners excepted) agreed not 
to strike and they agreed to waive all the trade union restrictions and 
regulations which for a generation had been built up to safeguard 
the status and income of skilled men. The effect of the agreement 
was to scrap old machines, introduce speeding up and dilute the 
labor force in the war trades with unskilled and semi-skilled men, 
women and youths. The effect was, also, to shelve the old negotiat- 
ing and conciliating machinery between employers and employees 
just at the time that the abandonment of the rules and regulations 
and the influx of "dilutes" made local issues more real. 

In view of the fact that these issues had thus, in war time, to 
be settled, not by bargaining, but by decision of the arbitration 
boards under the munitions act, the district trade union committees 
tended to side-step them and pass them up to the nationals, and the 
nationals to pass them on to the government tribunals. Moreover, 
under the war conditions, the new workers sought representation and 
a chance to count. The result was the growth of shop stewardism 
as a spontaneous groping after local remedy. It has taken many 
forms — sometimes the selection of a single steward for all crafts and 
all grades of skill as the representative of the men of a plant in 
meeting with their employers; sometimes the getting together of 
several stewards in a large plant; sometimes the getting together of 
the shop stewards of one district in a common committee for joint 
action. This brought them at various times and places into conflict 
with district committees, with the national unions, with the em- 
ployers and with the government; conflicts which spread rather than 
confined the movement; conflicts which brought them individual set- 
backs only to break the way for newer and further incarnations of 
the same active principle elsewhere. 

To understand these outcroppings of self-assertion at a hundred 



SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 151 

points — which can be compared only to a new rough and ready 
local leadership breaking through the crusts of a stale political 
regime — such as the overthrow of the Whigs by the headstrong 
Jackson Democrats in the 20's — it is necessary to retrace some of 
the developments of the last four years, more in detail. It must be 
borne in mind, in doing so, that the war did not create Englisb 
industrial unrest. It merely speeded it up along with output. In 
1913, Great Britain had 1,497 strikes and lockouts, involving 688,- 
925 workpeople, and a duration in working days of 11,630,732. In 
coal-mining 200,000 persons were involved, in engineering 50,000. 
The war intensified the causes of dispute, and in 1917, 267,000 
miners were involved, and 316,000 engineering workers. 

Modern big-scale standardized industry had long before the war 
outgrown its checks and controls, and was seeking others which 
would permit it to function productively, smoothly and justly. It 
was seeking a government of its own, autocratic or self-governing, 
according as you focussed attention on the big managers or on stir- 
rings in rank and file. When the war need came to produce stand- 
ardized goods swiftly, in immense quantities, the directorate and 
the workers could not operate under the old constitution. 

The power-driven machine tool had entered industry. An auto- 
matic machine is "a machine which, after the job has been fixed, 
requires no hand adjustment." Specialized work is done by such 
machines, one person forging nuts, another superintending their 
tapping, a third turning their ends, a fourth shaping their sides, 
another hardening them, a sixth polishing them. This means, car- 
ried over a period of years, that unskilled and semi-skilled labor 
takes over the process from the skilled worker, who is used only 
to set up the machine. It means that women and children supplant 
the adult male. 1 

THE LOST SAFEGUARDS 

Before the war the introduction of low-paid women as machine 
tenders had made for simmering trouble in the engineering trades. 
With the half million of women entering these trades (which are the 
munition trades) under the demands of war, the trouble boiled up. 
In the autumn of 19 14, a great armament firm put in women on 
shell-making, with a wage-reduction of 50 per cent from the stand- 
ard rate of men. An agreement was reached between the Employers' 
Federation and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, restricting 
female labor to purely automatic operations. The men thus con- 
ceded the right of women to take part in the process of shell-making, 

1 "Women in the Engineering Trades," by Barbara Drake. 



152 WORKERS' CONTROL 

but the firm did not make the corresponding concession of maintain- 
ing the wage-scale. 

In February, 1915, the Government Committee on Production in 
Engineering and Shipbuilding proposed the Shells and Fuses Agree- 
ment, which was accepted by the employers and the trade unions. 
It admitted female labor to "operations on which skilled men are 
at present employed." The employers agreed to pay "the usual 
rates of the district for the operations performed." But they agreed 
to pay them to women taking the place of skilled men. Shell and 
fuse making are largely semi-skilled trades. The Employers' Fed- 
eration issued a note to its members: "Female labor undertaking 
the work of semi-skilled or skilled men shall be paid the recognized 
employers sent a letter to the trade unions saying: "Female labor 
undertaking the work of semi-skilled and unskilled men shall be 
paid the recognized rates of the district for female labor on the 
operations in question." 

This meant that the women, entering engineering and "diluting" 
the labor supply, were to receive a wage of about five cents an 
hour, and thus undercut the standard of livelihood which the Amal- 
gamated Society of Engineers had been building up since 1851. 

The A. S. E. replied: "Female labor undertaking the work of 
semi-skilled or unskilled men must receive the rates paid to the men 
they displace." 

Too late. The union should have remembered earlier the semi- 
skilled character of the work, and not have permitted the employers 
to catch them napping with the word "skilled." The officials of the 
A. S. E. never again caught up with the situation. Multitudes of 
women were poured into the engineering trades at a low wage scale. 
The rank and file members of the union remembered from this 
moment on that their officials (the executive committee and the dis- 
trict committees) had failed to protect them at this time of crisis. 
From this time on, the rank and file looked to themselves, and 
not to their officials, for protective action against what they believed 
to be profiteering employers. The labor troubles of the Clyde, Cov- 
entry, and elsewhere, with the shop stewards leading them, began 
when the employers contrived to let the old labor leadership throw 
down its outer defenses by admitting women to the munition proc- 
esses, and at the same time refused to safeguard the wage scale. 1 

On February 8, 19 15, H. J. Tennant, who had been Under- 
Secretary of State for War, representing the government, summoned 
the labor leaders to organize the forces of labor, thus confessing 

1 See "British Industrial Experience During the War," Part III, by 
W. Jett Lauck. Senate Document No. 114. 



SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 153 

the inability of the state and of the employers to conduct industry 
without a new partner in the control. This new partner was the 
trade union. This act of the government made the joint committee 
of men and masters a board of continuous mediation, conciliation 
and consultation. It conceded the husk of democratic control of 
industry, but what of the kernel? 

Lloyd George was at this point in his varied career Chancellor 
of the Exchequer. In March, 19 15, he called a conference at the 
Treasury of 33 leading trade unions. He and they drew up the 
Treasury Agreement. Stoppages of work were to cease; arbitration 
was to take the place of strikes and lockouts. The trade unions 
were to favor "such changes in working conditions or trade cus- 
toms as may be necessary with a view to accelerating the output 
of war munitions or equipments." 

The following were the principal features of this agreement: x 

(1) The Minister of Munitions received power to control factories 
engaged principally on the manufacture of munitions. The control 
of these factories amounted to a right of the Minister of Munitions 
to take the plant over altogether from the owners. That right has 
been rarely exercised and exercised only when the management 
failed to comply with the requirements of the government. Such 
cases have been very exceptional, probably only two or three in 
number. As part of his powers in regard to these factories (and 
this actually became law) the Minister of Munitions had definite 
authority to limit the profits of such plants. The profits were lim- 
ited to an increase of one-fifth over an average of the profits of 
the three years preceding. 

(2) The trade unions agreed that, in view of the fact that a 
definite limitation had been put on profits, the wages of the employees 
should be fixed at the rates which existed at that time. There was 
to be no fluctuation upwards or downwards in the wages except by 
consent of the Minister of Munitions. It was agreed that neither 
capital nor labor should make a profit out of the nation's needs. The 
government, having fixed wages, appreciated that it became its duty 
to see that the labor so dealt with should not suffer from the in- 
creased cost of living. It set up a Committee on Production. One 
of the duties of this committee consisted in hearing evidence as to 
the increased cost of living three times every year. Evidence was 
brought before it by trade unions' officials, or any one concerned, 
and the committee had all the government statistics in regard to 
the increased cost of the necessities of life. Assuming that the 
living costs had gone up, the committee then made (in the nature of 
a war bonus) a national award to all employees on war work, 
payable by the employer, but to be recovered from the government. 

1 Report of the Special Commission from the British Ministry of Muni- 
tions. 



154 WORKERS' CONTROL 

(3) Strikes and lockouts became illegal and arbitration became 
compulsory. It was agreed that any trade disputes in war industries 
should, for the period of the war, be submitted compulsorily to arbi- 
tration, which the government should arrange. A strike or lockout 
in peace time was looked upon as more or less a domestic matter. 
The government very rarely interfered, and only when it became a 
widespread inconvenience. However, the government took the view 
that its duties in peace time and war time were different. It took 
the view that its duty was to interfere between employers and em- 
ployees to prevent interruption of supplies vital to the success of the 
armies. The government viewed thiG matter with such gravity that 
power was granted by the act to imprison for life any one who 
incited to strikes or interfered with the operation of the agreement. 
It never enforced this penalty. Public opinion was generally suffi- 
cient to enforce the act. 

(4) The trade unions agreed to waive all their practices and 
customs which tended to restrict either employment or output, such 
as the employment of only union labor, and the use of only skilled 
persons on skilled jobs; and they promised to do their utmost to 
see that that agreement was carried through. They agreed also that 
any person, man or women, would be allowed to do any kind of 
work. In return for these important concessions the government 
pledged itself to restore pre-war conditions in shops after the war. 
The trade unions leaders abided loyally by that agreement and act. 

In other words, labor was to give up its chief offensive weapon 
(the strike) by which it could achieve a drastic reconsideration of 
its status and standard of living, and also its system of defensive 
trenches (its trade union restrictions, with respect to speeding up, 
overtime, apprenticeship and the like) by which it could safeguard 
the standards it had gained in the past. In return for what? A 
promise, not a fulfilment: 

The relaxation of existing demarcation restrictions and admis- 
sion of semi-skilled or female labor shall not affect adversely the 
rates customarily paid for the job. 

And the A. S. E. obtained the additional promise: 

That the Government will undertake to use its influence to secure 
the restoration of previous conditions in every case after the war. 

Already the majority of munition workers were women. Their 
interests were not directly represented. One of their spokesmen 
wrote to Lloyd George for a definition of "rates customarily paid." 

Lloyd George said: 

The words which you quote would guarantee that women under- 
taking the work of men would get the same piece-rate as men were 
receiving before the date of the agreement. 



SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 155 

This meant that the piece-rate but not the time-rate was guar- 
anteed. But the time-rate is the basic standard for wages, because, 
without a time-rate guarantee, the piece-rate can be nibbled away. 
Also, many operations are not on piece-work. So the Treasury 
Agreement did not safeguard the new unskilled workers. The re- 
sult was, in the testimony of Mrs. Drake: * "The women's earn- 
ings fell to just one-half the earnings of the men, although the output 
of each was exactly the same." 

The first Munitions of War Act incorporated this Treasury Agree- 
ment. It went further and prevented the worker from obtaining 
an increase in wages by leaving one factory and going to another. 
It prevented him by enacting that he must obtain a "leaving cer- 
tificate" from his former employer, or else go idle for six weeks. The 
wording was this (Clause Seven) : "A person shall not give employ- 
ment to a workman who, within the previous six weeks, has been 
employed in or in connection with munition work," unless the 
workman held a certificate from the employer that he left work 
with the consent of his employer. Moreover, while this Munitions 
of War Act permitted the employer an advance of twenty per cent 
in profits over the profits of the three preceding years, it did not 
permit an average rise in the rate of wages sufficient to meet the rise 
in the cost of living. G. D. H. Cole, the Guild Socialist and labor 
investigator, says of it: 

In the Munitions Act, the state virtually entered into a profit- 
sharing arrangement with the employers for the exploitation of labor, 
lending its disciplinary powers to the employers for the period of 
the war. 

UNREST AND MITIGATIONS 

Mitigations were gradually found. A Labour Supply Committee 
drew up a memorandum (Circular L. 2) which became a statutory 
order fixing a rate of wages for women. And Circular L. 3 fixed 
the rate of wages for semi-skilled and unskilled men. By January, 
19 1 6, the Munitions of War Amendment Act made L. 2 and L. 3 
legal and mandatory in government-controlled factories. 

No less than three sets of adjustment agencies were set up to 
which the workers could appeal. 2 The title of the Committee on 
Production was a misnomer. Some such scope may have been in 
mind at the time of its creation but its work has been largely in 
the adjustment of grievances between the employers and the men's 

1 "Women in the Engineering Trades," by Barbara Drake. 

2 This was exclusive of the Minimum Wage Boards in certain sweated 
trades. 



156 WORKERS' CONTROL 

unions. At first it was made up of representatives of the govern- 
ment merely; but under pressure from labor, its membership was 
expanded, and therafter composed of nine members, three chairmen 
representing the public, three labor men and three employers sitting 
in groups of three as arbitration courts. Where the question was 
one involving women, it came under the munitions arbitral trib- 
unals. It was before these bodies that general adjustments were 
brought, which would ordinarily come under collective bargaining. 
Rulings once made, if there was question as to their meaning, or 
the workers or employers claimed that they were being wrongly 
enforced, the case was reopened in the same tribunal for reinterpre- 
tation and enforcement. But when it was a simple case of whether 
an existing rate or decision was being observed in a given plant, 
the complainant turned from the national bodies to the district 
munitions courts. For example, if a woman was being paid forty 
shillings when the arbitral tribunal had awarded fifty for that kind 
of work, she might start proceedings just as an individual starts 
proceedings in a civil court for collection of a debt. The presiding 
officer was usually, but not always, a barrister, but lawyers were 
not permitted to practised before these courts. He was assisted by 
two assessors, one nominated by the employers, and one (if the case 
were that of a woman) by the National Federation of Women Work- 
ers. 

A further explanation of the widening cleavage between the rank 
and file and the old leaders, especially those who went into the 
government, was the slowness with which this new wartime machin- 
ery too often functioned, coupled with the lack of consistent policy 
toward meeting the issues raised by the rising cost of living, by 
the change from time to piece rates, and by the revolutionary changes 
in method. 

For example, the National Federation of Women Workers had 
endeavored for a long time to get a minimum wage ruling for a 
certain very large class of operatives in munitions work. The 
government let the thing drag unconscionably. Finally the girls at 
Newcastle, some thousands of them, struck. The Federation was 
peppered with wires and long distance telephone calls from govern- 
ment officials telling them that the strike was contrary to the law 
and insisting that they should tell the girls to go back to work. 
The Federation said that it had tried for months to get the govern- 
ment to set a minimum rate but without avail. It had not advised 
the girls to strike, nor would it, under the circumstances, advise 
them to quit striking. The issue lay between the munitions office 
and the strikers. Within twenty-four hours the award was granted, 
for this was important war work, but the award was for these 



SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 157 

Newcastle girls alone. It took six weeks before similar rates were 
granted in other plants, and in each one the issue had to be raised 
that the rate had been granted in Newcastle. And it took four 
months before a general order was issued covering all work of 
this sort in the United Kingdom. As it was, the Newcastle girls 
got five pence an hour as against four pence halfpenny which was 
given to their less militant fellows. The result was to spread a dis- 
trust of the government's sincerity among a growing body of women 
who were having their first experience at wage earning. 

In general we have the Standing Joint Committee of Industrial 
Women's Organizations reporting that "the promises to munition 
workers generally of a fair minimum have so far materialized pre- 
cisely in proportion to the energy of the organizations concerned." 

To the skilled engineer his standard time-rate is everything. 
Even when employed regularly on piece-work or premium bonus his 
prices and time-limits are fixed on the basis of that rate, so as to 
yield a certain percentage above it — usually about 25. Mr. Lloyd 
George's reception on the Clyde was not promising. The men's 
contention was that they were not, in the circumstances, opposed to 
dilution (the entry of semi-skilled and unskilled workers into a 
skilled trade), but the guarantees and safeguards against its post- 
war persistence were worthless without certain conditions as to the 
payment of standard rates of wages, etc., and these Mr. Lloyd George 
did not so much as mention. 

— So wrote Herbert Highton, an operative engineer and trade 
unionist in July, 19 16. 

The Fabian Research Department summed up developments in 
191 7 as follows: 

The trade unions have abandoned their practice for the period of 
the war, and admit female labor to every branch of engineering con- 
cerned in munitions of war, while the employer retains his own, and 
continues to exploit female labor at blackleg and sweated rates of 
wages. 

And we find the Government Commission of Inquiry into Indus- 
trial Unrest (July, 191 7) presenting among the causes of unrest 
"inconsiderate treatment of women, whose wages are sometimes as 
low as 13 shillings;" and "the introduction of female labor without 
consultation with the workpeople." 

The summary of its eight reports on industrial unrest gave as 
causes: 

1. High food prices in relation to wages and unequal distribution 
of food. 



i 5 8 WORKERS' CONTROL 

2. Restrictions of personal freedom and, in particular, the effect 
of the munitions of war acts. Workmen have been tied up to par- 
ticular factories and have been unable to obtain wages in relation 
to their skill. In many cases the skilled man's wage is less than the 
wage of the unskilled. Too much centralization in London is re- 
ported. 

3. Lack of confidence in the government. This is due to the 
surrender of trade-union customs and the feeling that promises as. 
regards their restoration will not be kept. It has been emphasized 
by the omission to record changes of working conditions under 
Schedule II, article 7, of the munitions of war act. 

4. Delay in settlement of disputes. In some instances 10 weeks 
have elapsed without a settlement, and after a strike has taken place 
the matter has been put right in a few days. 

5. Operation of the military service acts. 

6. Lack of housing in certain areas. 

7. Restrictions on liquor. This is marked in some areas. 

8. Industrial fatigue. 

9. Lack of proper organization amongst the unions. 

10. Lack of communal sense. This is noticeable in South Wales, 
where there has been a break away from faith in parliamentary 
representation. 

11. Inconsiderate treatment of women, whose wages are some- 
times as low as 13s. 

12. Delay in granting pensions to soldiers, especially those in 
class "W" reserve. 

13. Raising the limit of income-tax exemption. 

14. The workmen's compensation act. The maximum of I pound 
weekly is now inadequate. 

Professor Gerald Stoney, in his presidential address to the en- 
gineering section of the British Association in 1916, asserted that 
"apparently the whole idea of the Armament Ring" was "to make all 
the profit they could out of the troubles of the Empire." 

All this led the worker to be distrustful of phrases about "get- 
ting on with the war," because he felt that certain employers were 
not getting on with the- war, but were using the phrase and the 
emotion it kindled as a cover for stripping labor of its safeguards, 
guarantees and gains, built up by over a century of struggle. He 
was strengthened in this distrust by such evidence as the 191 7 
Report of the Employers' Parliamentary Council, representing print- 
ers, builders, the Shipping Federation and other organizations of 
employers, and urging the repeal of such legislative protections of 
labor as the Trades Disputes Act and the Factory Acts. 

Further, the worker was rendered distrustful of phrases about 
"overthrowing the Prussian power" (when they came from the gov- 
erning class and the reactionary press), because his freedom of 



SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 159 

speech, his freedom of movement, and his power of collective bar- 
gaining had been lessened by the government in the Munitions of 
War Acts, the Defence of the Realm Act and the Military Service 
Acts. 

The "Garton Foundation," of which Alfred J. Balfour was a 
trustee, pointed out that: 

Many of the men who return from the trenches to the great muni- 
tion and shipbuildings centers are, within a few weeks of their re- 
turn, among those who exhibit most actively their discontent with 
present conditions. To a very large number of men now in the 
ranks, the fight against Germany is a fight against "Prussianism," 
and the spirit of Prussianism represents to them only an extreme 
example of that to which they object in the industrial and social 
institutions of their own country. They regard the present struggle 
as closely connected with the campaign against capitalist and class- 
domination at home. Unfortunately, some of the results of the war 
itself, such as the Munitions Acts and the Compulsion Acts, have 
intensified this identification of external and internal enemies. The 
working of these acts and the tribunals created under them has given 
rise to an amount of deep and widespread resentment which is the 
more dangerous because it is largely inarticulate. The very modera- 
tion and unselfishness shown by the responsible leaders of organized 
labor are looked upon by important sections of their following as 
a betrayal of the cause, and by some employers as a tactical oppor- 
tunity. 

THE CLYDE STRIKE 

This historical summary of the early years of the war lays bare 
what might be called the ground plan of the strikes in the engineer- 
ing trades and the shop stewards movement emerging from them. 
It reveals why the most vigorous expression of self-government in 
British industry came during the war and because of the war. 
The principle of "self-determination" was being fought for alike in 
Belgium and on the Clyde. The workers could not fight for a 
principle on the battle front, and at the same time permit its entire 
abrogation on the industrial front. 

When the miners remained outside the Treasury Agreement, the 
rank and file of other unions saw that their own leaders had signed 
away their collective power. Particularly in the munition trades, 
where the tide of "dilution" swept in, the distrust of their officials 
spread and grew among the trade union members. 

But not only was there this war-reason why these trade union 
leaders had lost grip on their following. There was a reason in 
the organization of union labor itself. In the munition or engineer- 



160 WORKERS' CONTROL 

ing industry, the unions are the Amalgamated Society of Engineers 
(275,000 members), the Friendly Society of Isonfounders (30,000), 
the Toolmakers (30,000), steam engine-makers (over 20,000), United 
Machine Workers (over 20,000), Brass-workers (18,000), Electrical 
Trades Union (12,000) and so on. In addition there are large en- 
gineering groups in the general labor unions, numbering over 300,000. 
This situation makes the A. S. E. the dominant union of the muni- 
tion trades. It is made up of fitters, turners, machinists, millwrights, 
smiths, electricians, planers, borers, slotters, pattern makers and 
other grades. Thus the A. S. E. is a craft union, but one composed 
of many kindred grades; the basis a common skill. It has 700 home 
branches, grouped in a series of district committees, covering each 
an industrial area. The Glasgow District Committee, for example, 
covers about 60 branches. The district committee has a measure 
of autonomy in framing the local industrial policy. It is com- 
posed of delegates from the branches in the district. The branch 
is made up of delegates from various shops. (So the policy of the 
branch is broken up among the various interests of these various 
shops.) Just as the district committee is above the branches, so 
the executive council is above the district committees. This execu- 
tive council is the national administrative body, the cabinet of the 
trade union. There is also a judicial and a legislative body. 1 

Now, the point to note in this analysis is that the only unit of 
the organization close to the workers in the shop is the branch, 
that the branch represents many shops (with conflicting interests), 
and that the branch does not deal directly with the head office and 
central executive of the whole union, but, instead, deals with a 
district committee. In short, the rank and file of the A. S. E. are 
a long way removed from the central executive, and as result the 
workers have felt that they are not swiftly and directly represented 
by their officials. This constitution of the A. S. E. dates back to 
1 85 1. With the miners ; the branch is based on the industrial unit 
of the coal-pit. With the engineers, the branch is based on the 
place where they live, not on the place where they work. 

To sum up, the war, bringing in standardized machinery and 
the dilution of labor, endangered the standard of living of the ma- 
chine shop workers. Their officials made bargains with the govern- 
ment, which robbed them of power. The constitution of the union 
made it difficult for the rank and file to be directly represented. 
Accordingly, they acted independently of the Treasury Agreement, 
of their officials, and of their constitution. They asserted the prin- 
ciple of local self-government in industry. They took action in 
the shop stewards' movement, which became the most revolutionary 

1 See G. D. H. Cole's "An Introduction to Trade Unionism." 



SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 161 

movement in the industrial field. It is breaking ground from beneath 
for workers' control. 

The rule-book of the A. S. E. says of the shop steward: 

Rule 13. — Committees may also appoint shop stewards in work- 
shops or department thereof in their respective districts, such stew- 
ards to be under the direction and control of the committee, by 
whom their duties shall be defined. The stewards shall be empow- 
ered to examine periodically the contribution cards of all members, 
and to demand that alleged members shall show their contribution 
cards for examination when starting work. They shall report at 
least once each quarter on all matters affecting the trade, and keep 
the committee posted with all events occurring in the various shops. 
They shall be paid 4s. for each quarterly report; namely, 3s. for 
duty performed, and is. for attendance and report to committee 
(conveners of shop stewards shall receive 6d. extra) ; these to be 
payable by the district committee. Should a shop steward be dis- 
charged through executing his duties he shall be entitled to full 
wage benefit. If it is necessary for stewards to attend other meet- 
ings of the committee they shall be remunerated the same as wit- 
nesses attending committee meetings. 

By the terms of the A. S, E. constitution, then, the shop stew- 
ards had come to be recognized as part of the organization, but 
entirely under the jurisdiction of the district committees. 

That sounds harmless enough. The shop steward was dues- 
collector, reporting to his branch and district committee. But the 
war pressure, already described, crushed down on the worker, ren- 
dered his central officials powerless, and created a set of conditions 
in the shop which made necessary continuous and immediate nego- 
tiation between the workers and their employers. The shop stew- 
ard was the man who could perform this function. He was in the 
shop, was elected by the workers, and merely had to enlarge a 
function already exercised. 

Here is what happened. In the Parkhead Engineering Works, 
there had been before the war 20 shop stewards, and, under war 
conditions, the number of shop stewards was increased to 60. David 
Kirkwood was appointed convener or chief of the shop stewards, to 
deal with difficulties with the management, and report grievances. 

When the Munitions Act of July 2, 1915, was passed, the work- 
ers in the Clyde District (which included the Parkhead Works) 
formed the Clyde Workers Committee, which discussed the govern- 
ment's plan of dilution, and criticised the attitude of the executive 
officials of the A. S. E. and other unions. As one labor witness 
described it: 



162 WORKERS' CONTROL 

"It was more a collection of angry trade unionists than anything 
else, which had sprung into existence because of the trouble which 
was going on, on the Clyde." 

"Did you think it better to go to the Clyde Workers Committee 
than to go to your own Trade Union officials?" 

"Oh, yes. Our own Trade Union officials were hopelessly tied 
up. They could do nothing." 

"They were tied up by whom?" 

"Under the Munitions Act. Where the men in the workshop 
had previously sent their shop stewards to the A. S. E. to report 
to their district committee, the shop stewards were now sent to 
the Clyde Workers Committee." 

This committee of shop stewards issued a manifesto saying: 

The support given to the Munitions Act by the officials (of the 
A. S. E. and other unions) was an act of treachery to the working 
classes. We are out for unity and closer organization of all trades 
in the industry, one union being the ultimate aim. We will support 
the officials just so long as they rightly represent the workers, but 
we will act independently immediately they misrepresent them. 

This Clyde Workers Committee advocated the view that the 
organized trade unionists should be allowed to share in the adminis- 
tration and control of workshop arrangements. Kirkwood, a mem- 
ber of this committee, asked Lloyd George if he were prepared to 
give the workers a share in the management of the works. Kirk- 
wood said to Lloyd George that the workers, as socialists, welcomed 
dilution of labor, which they regarded as the natural development 
in industrial conditions. But this scheme of dilution must be car- 
ried out under the control of the workers. Without such control, 
cheap wages would be introduced. 

There we have the philosophy of the shop stewards movement 
in their own words — workers' control of industry, beginning in the 
shop, and industrial unionism (in preference to craft unionism). 

Lloyd George's conversation with Kirkwood took place in De- 
cember, 191 5. In the following March, came a strike in the Park- 
head Works where Kirkwood was convener. As the result of the 
strike Kirkwood and nine others were arrested and deported outside 
the Clyde area, and the shop stewards movement spread over Great 
Britain. 

The immediate cause of the strike was a dilution scheme. Women 
were set at work in the howitzer shop. Kirkwood and two shop 
stewards interviewed the women, and saw to it that they were 
requested to join the National Federation of Women Workers. The 
management of the works objected to these activities of Kirkwood, 
though they had used him to conciliate the workers at other times 



SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 163 

The result of the trouble was the strike and the deportation. The 
domestic radicalism of the shop stewards was in some cases yoked 
to an internationalism which was close to pacifism. Pacifism is a 
militant doctrine in England, and the charges of "unpatriotic" utter- 
ances against Kirkwood and others entered into the general public's 
sanction of the government's methods of repression. 

The Clyde trouble was the most spectacular of the cases of fric- 
tion in the munition trades, but it was by no means an isolated 
example. Unquestionably remarkable work was being done by the 
Production Committee and the bodies created under the Munitions 
Act to bring employers and workers together. But instances in 
which wage awards were hung up for months at a time until the 
workers struck or threatened to strike spread the notion, as already 
indicated, that you could not get anything from the authorities 
because it was right but only because you had the force to compel 
it. The result was to provoke strikes no less than to prevent them. 

Under the war law, to strike was a serious offense, and to lead 
or counsel or order a strike was a very serious one. As we have 
seen, it was not the responsible national officers of the older unions 
that led the strikes. They stood by the government in their agree- 
ment. But because they did not stand by the men, in the minds of 
many of the workers themselves, the shop stewards came up. They 
led the men and paid the penalty. 

Here, again, in dealing with the strikes, the government policy 
did not work out well. Its experience with deporting the strike 
leaders from the Clyde worked out so disastrously that it never 
again attempted drastic measures wholesale. Deportation is some- 
thing which is peculiarly offensive to the English worker. It smacks 
of South Africa; it goes against his ingrained ideas as to his rights 
in his own home, and in his own home town. And while the labor 
movement in England might have been of two minds as to the 
issues of the Clyde strike and the notions of its leaders, it was not 
of two minds as to the treatment of the Clyde strikers. McManus 
was deported from Glasgow to another city which had been a center 
of labor conservatism, with the result that that city thereafter 
became a hotbed of agitation. Kirkwood states that the A. S. E. 
Court of Appeal asked him to become its chairman. 

The government took the position in the case of a strike that 
it would not treat with the workers unless they went back. But 
a labor leader stated to us that, as a matter of fact, the government 
had crumpled in, time and again, and beat the devil around the 
stump in some other way; for example, by granting the demand, 
or some measure of it, without treating with the workers. This 
seemed so sweeping a statement that we took it up with a govern- 



164 WORKERS' CONTROL 

ment official who frankly admitted its truth. The results went to 
show pretty conclusively that the way to prevent strikes is not to 
prohibit them. 

WHAT THE STEWARDS STAND FOR 

But, as brought out on the Clyde, the shop stewards stand for 
something more far-reaching and constructive in its implications than 
the right to strike. They were asserting the right to an increased 
share in workshop management. They were doing it without con- 
sultation with the old-line officials of the unions ("We do not recog- 
nize them," said Kirkwood), and they were acting through an 
organization of shop stewards, representing unofficially all the shops 
in the district. 

The position of the shop steward is a detail in trade union organ- 
ization. The impulse of which the shop steward is an expression 
is from the rank and file of the labor movement. He came at a 
moment of arrest, when the trade union officials had been blocked 
by war legislation. He gathered up the dynamic of the rank and 
file and went ahead, while the officials had to mark time. He cap- 
tured the imagination of the unrepresented workers by direct action 
just when compromise and postponement were being forced upon 
them by their former leaders. The shop stewards as a group are 
young men, the central officials are middle-aged. The shop stew- 
ards are not inured by a lifetime of troubled experience to piece-meal 
gains, to opportunism. In the hour when government officials were 
devising programs of workshop committees and joint councils, the 
shop stewards formed their own committees — living embodiments of 
the Whitley Report. 

The danger of unchartered liberty and youthful dynamic is 
clear. Yet a keen observer of labor conditions expressed the belief 
to us that there would not be permanent antagonism between the 
self-created shop stewards and the shop committees set up under 
this national program. The stewards have need for the committees 
in carrying out their work. And it is in committee organization 
that the permanent basis of factory control can be found in a demo- 
cratic way. Nor will there be permanent antagonism between the 
shop stewards and the national unions of organized labor. They 
are more likely to be recognized and harnessed to the main labor 
machine; their powers definitely limited so as to make concurrent 
national action possible, and at the same time to give considerable 
latitude in local matters. 

From the union standpoint, the immediate question is: Shall 
shop stewards of various trades receive recognition for common action 
in the works of a district? G. D. H. Cole has suggested a way out. 



SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 165 

Let the general principle of organization be that of the works 
branch (instead of the residence branch). Then the shop stewards 
will become the branch officials, and the shop stewards' committee the 
branch committee. The unofficial workshop movement will have 
been taken up into, and made a part of, the official machinery of 
Trade Unionism. 

At a national conference held between the Engineering Employ- 
ers' Federation and the Engineering Trade Unions, recognition was 
given to shop stewards, and their entry into negotiation in the early 
phases permitted. The A. S. E. did not sign the agreement. In 
December, 191 7, representatives of the Engineering Employers' Fed- 
eration and of 13 trade unions held a conference. The unions in- 
cluded Steam Engine Workers, Toolmakers, Smiths and Strikers, 
Brassfounders and Metal Mechanics, Blacksmiths and Iron Work- 
ers, Electricians, Journeymen Brassfounders, Coremakers, and En- 
ginemen; the Workers Union and General Workers. They came to 
agreement that the functions of the stewards, so far as they were 
concerned with the avoidance of disputes, would be on the following 
lines: 

A workman or workmen desiring to raise any question in which 
he or they are directly concerned shall in the first instance discuss 
the same with his or their foreman. 

Failing settlement the question shall, if desired, be taken up 
with the management by the appropriate shop stewards and one 
of the workmen directly concerned. 

If no settlement is arrived at the question may, at the request 
of either party, be further considered at a meeting to be arranged 
between the management and the appropriate shop steward, together 
with a deputation of the workmen directly concerned. At this 
meeting the organizing district delegate may be present, in which 
event a representative of the employers' association shall also be 
present. 

The question may thereafter be referred for further considera- 
tion in terms of the provisions for avoiding disputes. 

No stoppage of work shall take place until the question has been 
fully dealt with in accordance with this agreement and with the 
provisions for avoiding disputes. 

Meanwhile, the shop stewards' movement was spreading out into 
woodworking trades, textiles, and the boot and shoe trades. 1 A 

1 The manufacturing sections of the cotton industry are now beginning 
to follow the spinners in the creation of shop committees. The Ashton 
and District Textile Manufacturing Trades Federation has elaborated a 
scheme for the appointment of shop stewards and shop committees. A 
steward is to be appointed for every fifteen or twenty workers, and the 
expenses are to be met by a shop levy of id. monthly. The stewards are 



1 66 WORKERS' CONTROL 

prophet and philosopher of its extension (himself one of the lead- 
ers) is J. T. Murphy of Sheffield, whose pamphlet has been accepted 
by the National Conference of Shop Stewards as voicing their de- 
mands. He calls it "The Workers' Committee" and he believes that 
the new trade union organization will be based on the shop and the 
works, instead of the craft and the industry. He gives the power of 
final decisions always to the rank and file, and never to the upper 
stories of organization. He visions shop stewards, shop committees, 
plant committees, local industrial committees, local workers' com- 
mittees (all the plants in a district) and then a national organiza- 
tion of districts. 

Murphy holds that "the conflict between the rank and file of the 
trade unions and their officials, if not remedied, will lead us all into 
muddle and ultimately disaster." He believes that "government by 
trade union officials" has become discredited, not because of "the 
difference between propaganda and administration," but because of 
the remoteness of union officials from the workshop: 

The procedure to adopt is to form in every workshop a work- 
shop committee, composed of shop stewards, elected by the workers 
in the workshops. Skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled workers 
should have their shop stewards, and due regard be given also to 
the particular union to which each worker belongs. We would also 
advise that there be one shop steward to not more than 15 workers. 
Another step is to intensify the development of the workshop com- 
mittees by the formation in every plant of a plant or works com- 
mittee. To achieve this all the stewards of each firm, from every 
department of that firm, should meet and elect a committee from 
amongst them to centralize the efforts or link up the shop commit- 
tees in the firm. 

Murphy sees through this machinery the modification of the old 
trade union organizations, "until we merge into the great industrial 
union of the working class." 

to elect from themselves shop committees, and grievances are to be sub- 
mitted to these committees, which will take them up with the management. 
Failing a settlement at this stage, the matter will be carried to the district 
trade union organization. Thus the movement towards workshop organ- 
ization goes on spreading from one section of workers to another. 

The Oldham operative cotton spinners have approved the adoption of 
the shop steward principle in the cotton mills by a majority of nearly two 
to one. _ It is provided under the scheme that there shall be a shop club at 
each mill, that all spinners at the mills must be members, and that the 
chairman, secretary, and committee of the respective shop clubs shall be 
representatives to the management in case of any grievance. Each shop 
club is to appoint two representatives to attend the district monthly meet- 
ings and report on the proceedings to their club. 



SHOP STEWARDS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 167 

But one thing is sure. While, as we shall see in succeeding chap- 
ters, the government plans Whitley Committees (with the consent 
of the employer and the worker), and while farseeing employers 
encourage them, elsewhere the workers themselves elect their own 
stewards, their own committees, and set going from the bottom up 
the movement toward workers' control, which in its various embodi- 
ments will dominate industrial reconstruction in England. 

The shop stewards are those who have broken with tradition at 
the place where the fight is hardest — in their own organization, in 
their own workshop. 



CHAPTER XV 

INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM 

The miner working with the naked material itself, tearing it 
from its elemental setting, and lifting it to its market, has a clearer 
vision of industry than the mechanic who deals with the tenth part 
of a process on a machine. Wherefore the British miners have, of 
all trade unionists, stood most unbudgingly for self-government in 
their calling as a whole. It was the miners who refused to come in 
under the Treasury Agreement. They did not give up their right 
to strike. As a result, their leaders, like Robert Smillie and Vernon 
Hartshorn, who defied the government, have held the trust of the 
rank and file. 

Out of 1,095,000 British coal miners, 800,000 are organized in 
the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, of which Robert Smillie 
is head. In 19 15, he became chairman, also, of the new Triple Al- 
liance, composed of the Miners, the National Transport Workers' 
Federation, and the National Union of Railwaymen. The Triple 
Alliance with its million and a half men, is the strongest offensive 
amalgamation that has ever been made in the trade union world. 
Controlling fuel and the machinery of transport, it can hold up the 
economic life of Great Britain. Of the miners alone, and their head, 
Clynes once said that they unmake cabinets, and another trade union- 
ist felt their power so keenly that he reminded them that they were 
not God Almighty. 

The archetype of the new race of rulers is not the clever, honest 
statesman, J. R. Clynes, nor the political engineer, Arthur Hender- 
son. It is not symbolized by the pure burning heart of the labor 
movement, George Lansbury, nor by the accurate, patient, astute, 
fact-gathering, program-formulating intellect, like Sidney Webb and 
G. D. H. Cole. To the ignorant outsider, and to several millions of 
the workers of Britain, who know their man, the representative of 
labor at this time, catching up its master ideas, touched with its 
fervor, and conscious of its delegated power, is Robert Smillie. 

Smillie comes from the same district which gave Keir Hardy and 
Alexander MacDonald (the great miners' leader and one of the first 
labor members of Parliament) to the English labor movement. 

168 



INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM 169 

While, earlier in the war, his views on war policy and peace were 
outspokenly at variance with the general trend of sentiment within 
the ranks of organized labor, so secure was his standing among the 
men for trusted leadership and ability that he was kept at his post. 
The government itself appointed him to membership on the Whitley 
Committee whose report forms the basis of British policy for indus- 
trial reconstruction after the war. More than once during the war 
he was asked to enter the British ministry. 

Robert Smillie has seven grown sons — all Socialists like their 
father. Two of them came to him when the war broke out and 
said, "We know how you stand. We believe as you do. But if 
there is to be killing and sweating we will take our share of it." 
And they volunteered. Two other sons came to him; they were 
conscientious objectors, and were later accepted as such by the tri- 
bunals, being allowed to work in callings of national importance: one 
on a farm and one in timber cutting. Three other sons were at 
work in the mines and steel mills. One of the first named is an 
officer who put his training in the pits to account in helping carry 
out the largest military mining operation on the western front. He 
was later invalided back to England with neurasthenia as a result 
of nine days in which he was cooped in a dug-out in the midst of 
artillery fire. 

Smillie himself is a Scotchman in the burr of his tongue and a 
miner in the set of his shoulders. He is powerful because of his 
position, and he is powerful in his personality. In his rough tweeds, 
pipe in mouth, in a room so cold that he paced back and forth to 
keep warm, he made the following statement to us at Nottingham of 
how things stood with the men of the mining industry: 

Our experience in this country was that when war was declared 
it undoubtedly created an enormous amount of enthusiasm. Men 
of all ranks rushed to join the army, for what to them seemed the 
holiest cause that could be — the defense of small nations and treaties. 
Fathers and sons went together to recruiting offices, and fathers 
made misstatements about their ages in order to be accepted as 
recruits. 

Moreover, there seemed to be a special desire to have miners 
on the part of the military authorities, who stated on many occa- 
sions that miners made the best class of soldiers. They had been 
used to facing dangers all their lives in mine work. The nature 
of the employment had developed them and made them strong. 
They did not require so much training as people who joined from 
sedentary employments. Within the first eighteen months about a 
quarter of a million miners joined the colors — or, roughly, 25 per 
cent of the mine workers. 

We found so many miners leaving the mines, there was serious 



170 WORKERS' CONTROL 

danger that a falling output of coal would interfere with the en- 
gineering and munitions works. A very large number of elderly 
men who had previously been miners came back to the pits, and a 
large number of outside laborers came in. In addition, some thou- 
sands of miners who either broke down in training or were wounded 
were sent back. The military authorities did not, however, return 
any Class A men, and the districts managed to keep up output with 
the additional labor mentioned. 

It was evidently the intention of the military authorities and 
employers that soldiers coming back into the mines and into muni- 
tion work should be under military discipline and should wear the 
uniform and work at soldiers' pay. The miners in conference de- 
cided that they would insist that these men should have full civilian 
rights, that they should have to be members of the trade union, 
and that they should not be used as strike breakers. The government 
agreed to this line, and the soldiers returned to the mines are in 
the same position as other workers. 

All members of the miners' unions who have gone to the front 
have been kept in full membership without payment while there, 
and will be accepted back in good standing on their return. All 
those who have come into the mines from the outside have, of 
course, linked up with the unions. ("The present situation is that 
in probably 95 per cent of the coal mines of Great Britain all per- 
sons connected with mining labor must be members of the organi- 
zation.] In the majority of the branches of the miners' federation 
the payment of sixpence per year to the union secures funeral bene- 
fits to the miner, his wife and children. Because of the number 
of miners who joined the army, the deaths at the front have been 
exceptionally heavy, and death claims have been paid out in all 
cases. This has been a serious drain on the unions, but as there 
have been no serious or widespread strikes, they are financially 
stronger than they were prior to the war. Including those at the 
front, they number 800,000 miners — 60,000 or 70,000 higher than 
before the war. But no less than three hundred thousand have 
joined the forces. 1 Since the falling off of the export coal trade 
the output of the mines is, of course, considerably under that of 
normal times, not because the individual miner has turned out less, 
but because there are less men engaged. 

Previous to the war, miners usually sent one or two of their 
sons to learn a trade outside the industry; since the war, all boys 
of a miner's family, generally speaking, have gone to the pits or 
are working on the surface. In Scotland the boys go right to the 
coal base as drivers ; in other parts they go as trapper boys or pony 
drivers. At all conferences the miners are in favor of raising the 
minimum age to fifteen and sixteen, but during the war this has 
not been possible. 

There are no women underground in any part of Great Britain, 

1 The number at the close of the war was 400,000. 



INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM 171 

as was the case in the middle of the last century; but on the sur- 
face, in Lancashire and Scotland, women have been employed to 
take the places of men and boys in clearing and manipulating coal 
on the surface. We insist that these women or young girls receive 
the same wages paid to the men or boys whose work they are 
doing, and in our last claim for an increase in wages the women 
got the full increase of nine shillings per week, secured by the men. 
In nearly all the mining districts outside of Lancashire and Scot- 
land the mine workers object strongly to their women being em- 
ployed about the mines. If it had not been for the war, the prob- 
ability is that a strong movement would have been set afoot to 
have female labor abolished even in Lancashire and Scotland. The 
question of the women being competitors of the men has not entered 
in. By insisting on the same wages for the same work we elimi- 
nate that. The miners do not think it is suitable work for the 
future mothers of the race. It is in many cases dirty and hard work. 
The women who have come into mining work since the war broke out 
will, in all probability, leave it — after things have settled down. 
Under reconstruction, if it is seriously gone into in the nation's 
interest, many channels of employment will open up, and make the 
pressure on them to earn in this way less severe. 

Probably the most important factor in industrial relations in 
the war was the attempt of the government to put miners under 
the munitions act. This would have taken from them the right 
to strike, and would have placed their leaders under a clause which 
imposed a heavy fine or imprisonment on any leader who had part 
in one. Mr. Lloyd George was minister of munitions when that bill 
went through. Accordingly, we saw him on behalf of the miners 
and told him that under no circumstances would the miners allow 
themselves to be placed under the munitions act. He ultimately 
agreed. That very fact has done more to keep some little shred 
of freedom for the workers of Great Britain than any other thing 
that has happened. All the strikes that have taken place in ship- 
yards, engineering and munition centers have been illegal strikes. 
They have been unconstitutional, as the officials of the unions dare 
not consent to them. No trade union funds have been paid out 
to the strikers. Yet the government could not act as strongly as 
it pleased against men who came out on strike because of the fact 
that the great mining movement was still free to take industrial 
action at any time. The government could not act drastically else- 
where, when the trade unionists generally knew the miners had 
held out and were free; while their own leaders had permitted them 
to be put under the act. 

One of the local branches of the miners' organization in Scot- 
land passed a resolution that if other trade unionists were badly 
treated they would stop out of sympathy. But the necessity has 
never arisen. 

In South Wales a dispute broke out immediately after the muni- 
tions act was passed — the most important area in Great Britain 



172 WORKERS' CONTROL 

from the point of view that it supplies admiralty coal for Britain, 
France and Italy. 

The government got the king to "proclaim" the South Wales 
miners, which was equal to placing them under the munitions act 
for the time being. The government then endeavored to get them 
to return to work. But the very fact that the line had been taken 
of proclaiming their strike as illegal stiffened them ; and the gov- 
ernment ultimately had to take over control of the Welsh mines 
and to force the employers to concede the points for which the 
workers were contending — a substantial increase in wages to help 
meet the increase in the cost of living. 

Since then the government has taken over control of all the 
mines of Great Britain, metal, as well as coal; lime and other quar- 
ries; also brick ovens and coke-producing plants. 

In August, 1917, the Miners' Federation, which includes the 
men of all of the coal mining districts of England, Scotland and 
Wales, made a demand for a general increase in wages, to help 
meet the increase in the cost of living. They made this demand 
not to the mine owners, but directly to the government through 
the coal controllers and threatened a common strike unless a sub- 
stantial advance was conceded. In September last an increase of 
one and sixpence per day was granted to all men and women work- 
ing in and about the mines who were over sixteen years old, and 
ninepence per day to all minors under sixteen. 

THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 

To turn to the other members of the Triple Alliance. The rail- 
way service is well organized. The National Union of Rail way men 
has 401,000 members. Its secretary is J. H. Thomas, M. P. He 
is one of the half-dozen strongest labor leaders in Great Britain. 
He has canny common sense, limpid sincerity, and a powerful voice 
out of a small body to make known his views. 

The other considerable unions in the railway service are the 
Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (38,000), 
and the Railway Clerks' Association (60,000). Altogether there 
are 610,000 railway employees. 

The class consciousness of railwaymen was heightened by the 
fact that the Taff Vale case of 1902 and the Osborne judgment of 
1909 fell within their organization. The Taff Vale Railway Com- 
pany won its case against the railway union for damages because of 
breach of contract from a strike. If this had become precedent, 
trade union action industrially would have been crippled. The 
Osborne case was one in which a railwayman claimed an injunction 
against using trade union funds for political purposes. If this had 
stood, trade union action politically would have been stalled. [See 
Chapter XII.] 



INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM 173 

Out of these and other experiences, the railwaymen learned their 
common interest, and built a constitution which gives them true 
industrial unionism in which all grades of labor are represented 
(instead of being split up and walled off by a multitude of craft 
unions). A national conference in 191 7 of the district councils of 
the railwaymen, called for state ownership of the railways after the 
war "to be jointly controlled and managed by the state and repre- 
sentatives of the National Union of Railwaymen." 

Under the occupational group of transport come the National 
Sailors and Firemen's Union (70,000), National Union of Ships' 
Stewards, Cooks, Butchers and Bakers (20,000); the Waterside 
workers with their National Union of Dock Labourers (50,000), 
Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Workers' Union (65,000); the 
vehicle workers with their vehicle, tramway, motormen, lorrymen, 
and carters associations. The National Transport Workers' Federa- 
tion has over 300,000 members. 

The Triple Alliance grew naturally out of a need. A coal strike 
hits railwaymen. A railway strike hits miners and dockers. A dock 
strike ties up coal brought by railways to the waterfront. Strikes 
in 191 1 and 19 12 on railways, docks and mines had partly failed, 
so the executives of the Miners, the National Union of Railwaymen 
and the National Transport Workers' Federation held conferences 
in 19 14, and a scheme of joint action was ratified on December 9, 
191 5, for "matters of a national character." 

When a delegation from the Triple Alliance visited the Premier, 
the London Times said: 

The delegates are waiting on the Prime Minister to issue their 
orders. This body of trade unionists is formally attempting to 
supercede constitutional government and to frighten the appointed 
Ministers of the Crown into doing their will. 

There is no question that Robert Smillie, Vernon Hartshorn, 
J. H. Thomas, Robert Williams, and the other members of the three 
executive committees of the Triple Alliance see the vast implica- 
tions of their coalition. Such power has passed into their hands as 
no human beings outside a war cabinet have exercised in modern 
days. They will mould the British labor movement of the future, 
and the structure of the state may be modified by their action. 

THE ECONOMIC WEAPON 

In June, 19 18, the writer sat at luncheon with one of the execu- 
tive committee of the Miners' Federation. He told how German 
guns now commanded French mines so that where 900,000 tons of 



174 WORKERS' CONTROL 

coal a month had hitherto been mined, now 100,000 tons were being 
mined, leaving a shortage of 800,000 tons. This shortage had to 
be met by the British miners, in large part by the Welsh miners. 
They were aware that by stopping work they could end the war in 
nine days, because this coal was essential for the transport of troops. 
But the power this gave them, they did not see how to use at the 
moment for a democratic gain. If they quit work, their own troops 
would be let down, and the Germans would come through. They 
held to their job. 

This illustrates the latent power of unionism in the economic 
field. In the days of reconstruction, organized labor will be the 
driving force behind any drastic change in the new social order. 
When Smillie swings the Triple Alliance, he will smite with its three- 
fold weight. As Smillie has said: 

The Triple Alliance has, for the period of the war, acted only 
on the defensive, but there will come a time when we shall formu- 
late proposals of aggressive action. The mere threat ought to be 
sufficient to bring about our well-thought-out democratic demands. 

In writing of the British labor movement, it is worth while to 
define it precisely. We have defined it on its political side. With 
its outstanding economic formation before us — the Triple Alliance, 
we shall now define it on its industrial side. Because of the cour- 
tesy of G. D. H. Cole, we had access to the figures for 1918 he had 
patiently gathered for his then unpublished book, "An Introduction 
to Trade Unionism." 

In 1892, in a population of 40 millions, the trade unions of the 
United Kingdom had a membership of about one million and a 
quarter (100,000 women). At the end of 191 6, the membership 
was 4,399,696 (about 535,000 women). To-day in a population 
of 47 millions, the membership is 5,000,000, over forty-five per 
cent, of the male manual workers. This is a more advanced stage 
than in the United States, where the American Federation of Labor 
has something over three millions in a population of a hundred 
millions. In Great Britain, the basic industries are organized, and 
in several instances the organization is nearly proof against "black- 
legs." One-half of trade union membership is in the engineering 
and shipbuilding industries, textiles and coal-mining. 

The engineering or metal trades we have studied in detail in 
the preceding chapter; the miners in this. 

In the shipbuilding trades, the chief unions are the United Society 
of Boilermakers (80,000), and the Shipwrights Association (30,000). 

The general labor unions have a membership of several hundred 
thousand (300,000 in the munition trades, alone). These include 



INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM 175 

the Workers' Union (350,000), National Union of General Workers 
(250,000), National Amalgamated Union of Labour (110,000). The 
national Federation of General Workers includes most of these in 
its membership of 700,000. 

In building, the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, Cabinet- 
makers and Joiners have 100,000. 

The textile trades include the Amalgamated Association of Card, 
Blowing and Ring-Room Operatives (60,000), the Amalgamated 
Association of Weavers, Winders, Warpers (200,000), the Amal- 
gamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners (50,000). 

In post-bellum days, there will be some friction inside the union 
movement along sex lines, although the woman's union movement 
stands for equal pay for equal work. Other conflicts growing out 
of the war will be between the skilled men and the unskilled who 
have been brought in and over questions of jurisdiction. Organized 
labor in the economic field is itself in for a period of reconstruction. 
Here again, the more fluid political movement adjusted itself to 
changed conditions while the war was on. 

For, as already noted, trade unionism is in the melting pot, 
and in every branch and local there is discussion of how to reorgan- 
ize in the economic field to meet the changed situation. There is a 
general feeling for more effective organization, and it would not be 
surprising if one-half to two-thirds of the criss-cross of organizations 
should be junked in time. A lot of personal considerations enter 
into the inhibitions which now prevent it. Some of the leaders 
would lose their jobs if there were a general telescoping; there are 
questions as to which of two executives would be the top man. But 
these considerations are likely all to be swept aside when the 
workers see the way out and the movement toward consolidation 
gets under way. 

There are already beginnings. Not only have the miners, trans- 
port workers, and railway men already created the Triple Alliance, 
but there is talk of merging them into one great union, with three 
branches. This would make them even more than they are now 
the dominant organization. Even as it is, at the conventions the 
votes swung by the big organizations often decide issues, and in 
self-protection other combinations will be created to restore the 
equilibrium. 

The tendency is toward industrial organization in the big coher- 
ent industrial fields — if by that is meant the organization in one 
union of all men employed about, for example, the mines. Its 
operation among railroaders in the last ten years has brought most 
of the men employed in and around railroading into one unit. In 
the iron and steel trade, the various skilled crafts are already united, 



i 7 6 WORKERS' CONTROL 

but as yet have not broadened into taking in the unskilled or semi- 
skilled men as in the case of the railroads and mines. On the other 
hand, in trades where you do not have a few great employers, or the 
employers are not organized, the solution is not so simple. Here 
the old craft unions may persist in a modified form, after various 
consolidations. 

Slowly, the many unions (over noo) are coming into effective 
industrial combination. The labor movement is not weakening 
toward a split. It is amalgamating. In 22 organizations are found 
three-quarters of all trade union membership. The cohesive force 
of the trade union movement is clearly revealed in these terms, 
that there are eight effective industrial combinations, each with at 
least 100,000 members, and a total membership of two and a half 
million. 

The eight combinations are the Miners (800,000), the Railway- 
men (400,000), the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (270,000), 
Workers' Union (350,000), National Union of General Workers 
(250,000), Amalgamated Weavers' Association (200,000), Amal- 
gamated Society of Carpenters, Cabinet-makers and Joiners (110,- 
000), and National Amalgamated Union of Labour (117,000). 

This is the striking blow behind the bargaining power of the 
industrial movement. And not only that, but when coal, cotton, 
transport and metal workers decide on a program of action, Great 
Britain will listen. And more simply yet, if the Triple Alliance wills 
it, the industrial life in Britain will stop short. 

Of the reconstruction period, Smillie said to us: 

The miners are practically unanimously in favor of state owner- 
ship of the land and of replacing the people as food producers on land 
which is now unused. They are certainly determined that as far 
as in them lies the government shall not only continue in control 
of the mines, but extend that control to state ownership. The syn- 
dicalist idea of miners' working, managing and owning the mines 
has not a very deep hold on the miners of this country. They 
fully expect, if the mines are owned and controlled by the state, 
that the workmen will have a considerable voice in the management, 
in view of the fact that they have more than livelihood at stake. 
Their safety of life and limb justifies the claim that they shall be 
represented in the management. We feel that many accidents of 
a more or less dangerous character arise not from the carelessness 
of the present management so much as through the desire to secure 
the largest possible output at the smallest possible cost. 

I have probably a more unique opportunity for testing the views 
of the organized workers of the country than most people because 
I have spent the last three years in addressing mass meetings in 
every corner of England, Scotland and Wales. The majority of 



INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM 177 

those meetings have been called under trade union auspices, and 
the chief matters dealt with have been the preservation by organ- 
ized labor of the liberties which it has taken so many years to 
secure, and the furtherance of a greater after-the-war reconstruc- 
tion movement, by which the land of Great Britain will be taken 
over from its present holders and used in the interests of the 
people; and mines, railways and workshops will be used for the 
production of commodities for use, and not merely to build up for- 
tunes for the capitalist class. 

To sum up: — Nearly half of the male adult wage-earning popu- 
lation is organized into trade unions. Unskilled or general workers 
have come inside trade union organization during the last four 
years at an unprecedented rate. Thus the National Union of Gen- 
eral Workers increased its membership by over 100,000 in 191 7. 
The old threat of unorganized, casual, unskilled, overworked, under- 
paid workers destroying the structure of trade unionism has disap- 
peared. Their incorporation, however, is effecting profound changes 
in that structure. In spite of many craft unions, great groups have 
formed, and the unions have learned their power in the state. 

They compose a Trades Union Congress, with a membership of 
over four million. Their political expression is the British Labour 
Party, with a trade union membership of 2,415,383. Seven hundred 
and fifty thousand workers are organized in the General Federation 
of Trade Unions for strike insurance benefits and other purposes. 
Three great groups have formed the Triple Industrial Alliance. 
These organizations represent the long struggle of the workers for 
recognition. They have won power, and they begin to wield it. 
The coming years will witness their use of it in achieving self- 
government in industry and in reconstructing the economic order. 

We have tried to give a fair and unbiased interpretation of the 
facts such as we have found them, not an expression of our own views 
on economic or political theory. Much of the discussion of the rise 
of labor, both in Great Britain and in the United States, 
is unintelligent because it assumes that we still have to deal with 
socialism as embodied in academic programs or with debatable 
questions of labor organization. Some people may be startled when 
they realize the degree of power and of class-conscious organ- 
ization already reached by British labor in the economic field. But 
it is only by such realization that statesmen, industrial managers 
and labor leaders alike will be able to deal with the forces at work 
in the economic order intelligently and constructively. A mere 
opposition is as useless as drifting, and will have no other effect 
than that of aggravating the clash of interests and philosophies 
which is bound to come to a decision before long. 



CHAPTER XVI 

SELF-GOVERNMENT IN INDUSTRY 

The application of the principle of workers' control (self-govern- 
ment in industry) is the greatest functional advance for democracy 
since the state extended its operation beyond police power and be- 
came an administrator of public services. 

It is this application of the principle of democratic control to 
the work-a-day life which the Bolshevists have aimed at. But the 
application of the principle is determined by the degree and smooth- 
ness of industrial organization. Isolated workmen cannot purchase 
raw material, control the flow of credit, and market the product. 
Workers' control demands a long discipline, an adaptation to the 
conditions of the industry, a developed capacity. 

What the sweated trades need first is not workers' control, but 
a minimum wage. Workers' control is an elastic term. It means, 
first, a little control in the workshop in regard to welfare and gen- 
eral workshop conditions. Then more control in relation to dis- 
cipline and sanitation. And so on, up to full participation in control 
over the industrial process inside the shop and in the industry as a 
whole. The degree of control will be set by the capacity of the 
workers for exercising control. 

The movement toward self-government in industry in Great 
Britain has expressed itself in three ways: 

(i) The instinctive action of the workers themselves (check- 
weighman in the mines, clicker in the printers' chapel, shop stew- 
ards in the metal trades) ; 

(2) The action of far-sighted employers by enlightened self- 
abdication of autocratic control over certain functions (the Renold 
committees at Manchester, the experiments by Rowntree and other 
employers) ; 

(3) Government action for the purpose of giving effect to the 
reports of the Whitley Committee. 

We have shown the shop stewards in action. We have shown 
why they acted, and why they had power to act. Of their action, 
Dr. Addison, as head of the Ministry of Munitions, said: 

The present unrest has largely been engineered by a number of 
men who have set up organizations known as shop stewards' com- 

178 



SELF-GOVERNMENT IN INDUSTRY 179 

mittees, and these committees appear to have serious differences 
with the Central Trade Union executives. The Minister of Muni- 
tions has no knowledge of these differences. Several of the tele- 
grams received have displayed just as great an anxiety to upset the 
authority of the Central Trade Union executives as anything else. 
It is quite impossible for the Ministry to negotiate on labor matters 
with any other authorities than the responsible executives of the 
unions. More than 80,000 shops in 20,000 establishments in the 
country are concerned, and it would be quite impossible for us to 
come to an understanding with each collection of shop stewards. 
We must deal with the organization which represents a trade col- 
lectively. 

The problem, then, was to fit shop stewards into trade union 
organization, to relate a fresh impulse to an institution. The in- 
stinctive action of the shop stewards brought them into conflict with 
their own officials, the employers and the government. 

But the shop stewards are not the only group that has felt its 
way toward self-government. Inside the same engineering trade, 
from which the shop stewards sprang, there is developing a more 
orderly movement toward self-government. The Amalgamated So- 
ciety of Engineers drew up a careful outline of workers' control for 
shop committees, central works council, local joint committees, cen- 
tral conciliation board. Two of the men, instrumental in devising 
this outline, were F. S. Button (then on the Executive Council of 
the A. S. E., later a member of the Government's Committee on 
Production) and G. D. H. Cole (the expert in trade union organiza- 
tion). The demarcation of function in this hierarchy of commit- 
tees is carefully given in detail. The reader will find the full out- 
line in Appendix XIV. The point is that a great trade union is 
creating its own constitution for self-government in industry. 

The Executive Committee of the National Union of Railwaymen 
likewise has formulated its detailed demand for workers' control 
(Appendix XIV). 

The building trades early asked for a builders' national indus- 
trial parliament, with a constitution calling for works committees, 
joint district boards, and a national parliament. 

The basic principle of workers' control is that of function, "no 
function, no rights," the fulfillment of function giving the right of 
control — control of conditions and processes. 

Each of these programs of the workers, demanding control, spe- 
cifies such matters as shop rules, welfare, rest periods, working shifts, 
adjustment in existing piece work prices, the class of labor to be 
used on new types of machinery. 

Scientific management will be closely scrutinized by these work- 



180 WORKERS' CONTROL 

ers' committees. Health and the integrity of personality, as well as 
the standard of living, will be safeguarded if they have their way 
before speeding-up devices, motion studies and standardized equip- 
ment are permitted to level industry to a mechanical monotony. 
Scientific management, bringing greater productivity, must come, 
because "the real available net income would not, distributed evenly 
among the population of the United Kingdom, yield more than £34 
per person, or £136 for an average family of four. The amount of 
national productivity was not adequate to supply the full require- 
ments of a progressive people." But scientific management will 
come only as the employer jpays the price of admission, and that 
price is a measure of workers' control. 

For years joint committees have existed in the leading trades. 
These have been conciliation boards, with arbitral elements, and 
recourse to some third impartial authority. The area of their func- 
tioning was limited to not much else than the historic twins of wages 
and hours. The new ideas of control call for a negotiation board, on 
which the two parties meet on all questions arising between employ- 
ers and employee, especially in the new storm centers of discipline 
and management. 

Let us restate the significance of this change. Industrial action 
centers in control over the processes of production. Political action 
in the economic field centers in control of exchange, taxation, bank- 
ing and investment. In industrial action the British workers have 
won the right of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining has 
concerned itself mainly with wages and hours. By possessing the 
right of collective bargaining, British workers have organized over 
45 per cent, of the male adult wage-earning population. 

Now the British worker is busy in winning a new right.; affirm- 
ing a new concern. It is that of producers' control in the shop, 
plant and national industry. It is that of self-government in indus- 
try. The difference between collective bargaining and workers' con- 
trol is at that invisible line where wages and hours pass over into 
status. It is where labor ceases to be bought as a commodity. It 
is where a shared management takes the place of autocratic orders 
and leads on to producers' control 

This idea of self-government in industry strikes out a philosophy 
of its own. The National Guild is a thing dreamed of, but never 
yet attained. It is like socialism and Christianity and brotherhood. 
The National Guild is an extension of the trade union till its struc- 
ture covers an industry, embracing both managers and workers. It 
presupposes a Collectivist State. In popular phrase, its program is 
ownership by the state, and management by the workers. It repre- 
sents the reaction not only against untrammeled private manipu- 



SELF-GOVERNMENT IN INDUSTRY 181 

lation of labor but against that form of state socialism which builds 
up a bureaucracy — a set of officials, sitting at the levers of power, 
and invading private life. Its direct conscious followers are not 
many. Its indirect influence is wide. Its organ, The New Age, has 
a limited but choice circulation. Its advocates, Orage, Mellor, Cole, 
and S. G. Hobson, are clear- thinking men whose ideas will continue 
to infiltrate the industrial population. 

THE RENOLD PLAN 

In this book we are not weighing industrial philosophies. We 
are interpreting such reconstruction plans as are already in opera- 
tion, or are in process of enactment because an effective organiza- 
tion is the driving force behind them. In the movement toward 
self-government in industry, certain employers have been among the 
wise leaders. One of these is C. G. Renold, a north of England 
metal trades employer, who has carried out his ideas at his Man- 
chester works. Renold represents the new type of employer who 
understands the democratic movement in industry. He says: 

The Shop Stewards' Committee, in the engineering trade, at 
least, is fairly certain to constitute itself without any help from the 
management. The management should hasten to recognize it, and 
give it every facility for carrying on its business, and should en- 
deavor to give it a recognized status and to impress it with a 
sense of responsibility. 

He states that he comes to the subject of industrial unrest "with 
the conviction that the worker's desire for more scope in his work- 
ing life can best be satisfied by giving him some share in the direct- 
ing of it; if not of the work itself, at least of the conditions under 
which it is carried out." 

Renold stresses the need for "a new orientation of ideas with 
regard to industrial management. The trend of such ideas must 
be in the direction of a devolution of some of the functions and 
responsibilities of management on to the workers themselves." 

He begins with the conviction of this need. He assumes it with- 
out argument as a proved case. What concerns him is the machinery 
for the new social order already thrusting up through the welter of 
war. Such utter relegation to the scrap heap of an old order with its 
obsolete autocratic methods may shock some Americans. But 
the average British employer is a more enlightened person than the 
average American employer, because he has been chastened by a 
powerful and ever-growing trade union movement, which has long 
won the right of collective bargaining and of participation in the 



182 WORKERS' CONTROL 

determination of legal minimum wage standards. So when a prole- 
tarian philosophy of functional rights (the right of the producer to 
control the conditions and the processes of his production) is dis- 
charged at the British employer, he does not fight it blindly. He 
listens, and sometimes he accepts important elements and applies 
them to his organization. Detailed instances of this application by 
enlightened employers will be found in the Appendix. 

Renold takes high ground in outlining his shop organization. He 
says: 

The satisfaction to be derived from work depends upon its being; 
a means of self-expression. This depends on the power of control 
exercised by the individual over the materials and processes used,, 
and the conditions under which the work is carried out. 

He recognizes the possibility of "the greater cumbersomeness of 
democratic proceedings" in mechanical efficiency, but puts his money 
on "freedom, initiative, interest, willing work and cooperation." 

The questions of importance for joint consultation are wage and 
piece-rate question, and, to a lesser degree, "workshop practices and 
customs." Also, "safety and hygiene, shop amenities." 

Or, in his systematic grouping, the questions in connection with 
which shop organizations would primarily benefit the workers 
are: 

Collective bargaining, which includes wages; piece-work rates; 
the application of special legislation, awards, agreements; total hours 
of work; new processes or change of process; grades of work, due 
to the introduction of new types of machines. 

Grievances, which include petty tyrannies by foremen, too rigid 
rules, wrongful dismissal. 

General shop conditions and amenities, which include shop rules 
on smoking, tidiness; maintenance of discipline, time-keeping en- 
forcement, meal hours, arrangements of shifts; accidents and sick- 
ness, safety appliances, rest room arrangements, medical advice; 
dining service; shop comfort and hygiene, temperature, ventilation, 
seats, drinking water; benevolent work, shop collections for char- 
ities, sick club, saving societies. 

General social amenities, which include works picnics, games, 
musical societies. 

Then come those matters on which joint discussion would pri- 
marily be of advantage to the management. These are interpreta- 
tion of the management to the workers, education in shop processes 
and trade technique, promotion, education in general business ques- 
tions. 



SELF-GOVERNMENT IN INDUSTRY 183 

What are the requirements which the new democratic machinery 
must satisfy? 

No works committee can be a substitute for the trade union, and 
no attempt must be made by the employer to use it in this way. It 
will be necessary for the trade unionists to develop some means of 
working committees into their scheme of organization, otherwise 
there will be the danger of a works committee, able to act more 
quickly through being on the spot, usurping the place of the local 
district committee of the trade unions. 

Exactly the thing that took place with the Clyde Shop Stewards, 
as we have seen in a preceding chapter. 

The committee must represent all grades of workers. It must be 
in touch with the management as an integral functioning part of 
the organization, not as a mere grievance committee. It must pos- 
sess rapidity of action. 

The committees must represent skilled and unskilled, various 
unions, women. "It will probably be necessary to have at least two 
kinds of works committees: one representing trade unionists as 
such, the other representing simply works departments." 

Finally, the success of works committees will depend on the 
success of the management. "The better organized and more con- 
stitutional the management is, the more possible is it for policy to 
be discussed with the workers." In other words, the "bad" em- 
ployer in sweated unorganized trades with a huge labor turn-over 
will not offer much point of junction for workers' committees. We 
shall see later in this chapter how the government purposes (through 
the Whitley recommendations and trade boards) to legislate him into 
"goodness." 

We have already quoted Renold on shop stewards. He accepts 
them. "It is doubtful, however, whether a shop stewards' com- 
mittee can, or should, cover the full range of workers' activities, 
except in the very simplest type of works." His reasons are that 
the shop stewards will deal primarily with wages and piece-work 
questions on the basis of bargaining and as trade unionists, disre- 
garding more general matters of workshop amenities, and that the 
shop stewards represent not the whole of the workers, but only the 
better organized sections. 

Renold finally works out in exact detail the three kinds of com- 
mittees, which he finds necessary to cover all the functions — the 
shop stewards committee, the welfare committee, and the social 
union. His analysis of their separate functions will be found in Ap- 
pendix XII. 

We have presented C. G. Renold 's views and the details of his 



184 WORKERS' CONTROL 

organization, because the actions of an employer who understands 
industrial democracy and applies it are of more value than the 
reports of writers and closet theorists (from whom have come many 
programs of reconstruction). 

OTHER EMPLOYERS 

The Burnage Works of Renold described above have 17 depart- 
ments, with 1000 male workers and 1600 women. 

The Rolls-Royce works in engineering and motor cars have 6000 
employees in 80 departments, of which nearly 40 have shop stew- 
ards. The works committee is one of shop stewards, each depart- 
ment electing its own shop steward (over half of the shop stewards 
belong to the A. S. E.). The management discusses with the com- 
mittee changes of process, the base times for premium bonus work, 
dilution. The shop steward system here, with its representatives 
from the A. S. E., coppersmiths, pattern-makers and others, has 
fitted into the official higher trade union structure. 

The Phoenix Dynamo Company, with 4,000 employees, has de- 
vised a system for fixing piece-work prices by continuous arbitra- 
tion. The firm says, "There is no question so vital to engineering 
and kindred industries as that of the fixing of piece-work prices." 
The firm tabulates the main difficulties as unscientific price-fixing, 
and the absence of proper machinery for appeal. It has installed 
a time study office, where the worker can study the detail of the 
calculations. If the worker is unconvinced he has the right of 
appeal to a committee, consisting of three of the firm's representa- 
tives, and three workmen's representatives, who sit within two days 
of the complaint. 

Messrs. Barr and Stroud, Engineering Works, 2,350 employees, 
have two workers' committees, one a committee dealing with shop 
amenities; the second, an industrial committee, based on trade 
unionism and the shop steward system. The twelve representatives 
of the workers are elected by the forty shop stewards of the plant. 
Questions treated by the industrial committee in the recent months 
have been the right of the convenor of shop stewards to go into 
other departments for discussion of grievances (one of the points 
at issue in the Clyde dispute, as we saw in Chapter XIV), wages 
of women, the record of changes in practice, the premium bonus 
system, appeals against dismissal, forgetfulness in "clocking on," 
Saturday overtime, wages of apprentices, rules for night shift work. 
Of this committee, the Ministry of Labour says: — "It is one of the 
most advanced works committees in existence." 

The H. O. Strong and Sons Norfolk Engineering Works report: 



SELF-GOVERNMENT IN INDUSTRY 185 

"The management have found the committee of the greatest service 
in conducting the business of the works." 

Such is the experience of a few out of many employers who have 
installed workers' committees. 

The great Quaker cocoa firms, such as the Cadburys and the 
Rowntrees, have made pioneer applications of industrial democracy 
to their plants. We give the composition and the functions of the 
system of Rowntree & Co. of York in Appendix XIV and the high 
ground taken by a group of Quaker employers in Appendix XIII. 

In a district investigation in the engineering and shipbuilding 
industries, ten employers expressed themselves in favor of works 
committees, and eight were opposed. Of the ten in favor, seven had 
a works committee. Of the eight opposed, one had a dilution com- 
mittee, one a gunshop committee, and six had no form of commit- 
tee. The reader who is interested should obtain a pamphlet from 
the British Ministry of Labour, entitled "Works Committees," where 
reports on 22 works committees in operation are given. 

The new social order after the war begins with several hundred 
"converted" employers, because many of the 5,000 government- 
controlled factories were organized with works committees. This 
has been largely done by Martin Hall, of the Ministry of Munitions. 
The conception of these workshop councils held by Hall (as devel- 
oped in an afternoon of talk with us) is more modest than that of 
David Kirkwood and J. T. Murphy. Hall's conception is that of 
a workers' grievance committee, a lightning rod for diverting and 
absorbing trouble. But the point is that the establishment of such 
committees (however restricted their scope in the beginning) is the 
affirmation of a new principle in industry. A principle once applied 
does not rest at its first frontiers. It extends itself out over new 
areas, and each gain is the entrenchment for a fresh push. 

THE WHITLEY REPORTS 

The Whitley Reports and memorandum of the Ministry of Re- 
construction are given in Appendices VII, VIII, IX and X. They 
call for joint industrial councils representing management and work- 
ers, in ever-widening spheres of cooperation, local, district, national. 
That is, in the shop and factory, the industrial area, and the trade, 
the worker is to have a share in the management of industry. The 
Whitley Reports were issued by a subcommittee of the Reconstruc- 
tion Committee, which later became the Committee on Relations 
Between Employers and Employed, to the Ministry of Reconstruc- 
tion. This Whitley Committee (as it came to be known because 
of its Chairman, J. H. Whitley) was composed of such persons as 



186 WORKERS' CONTROL , 

F. S. Button (formerly an executive of the Amalgamated Society 
of Engineers), J. R. Clynes (later Food Controller), J. A. Hobson 
(the economist), J. J. Mallon (secretary of the Anti-Sweating 
League), Sir G. J. Carter, chairman of the Shipbuilding Employers' 
Federation, Sir Gilbert Claughton, chairman of the London and 
North Western Railway Company, Sir Thomas A. Ratcliffe-Ellis, 
secretary of the Mining Association. Its recommendations for the 
organized trades are voluntary. This means that the employers 
and the unions are not forced to inaugurate industrial councils. 

The matters to be dealt with by these joint bodies of managers 
and workers are improvements of processes, machinery, organization, 
industrial experiments, the settlement of the general principles gov- 
erning the conditions of employment, including the methods of fixing, 
paying and adjusting wages. 

The Federation of British Industries accepted the recommenda- 
tions of the Whitley Report. The Federation has 124 associations 
and 691 firms and individuals, representing 9,000 firms in ail. 

The British Trades Union Congress of 191 7 with its millions of 
organized workers accepted the Whitley Report. The Congress of 
19 1 8 called on the Government to apply it to all departments of 
state service. 

The original recommendations were clear enough for the organ- 
ized trades. Later this recommendation was made for the sweated 
trades : 

In industries having no adequate organization of employers or 
employed, we recommend that trade boards should be continued or 
established. 

That means that a minimum wage shall be established in these trades 
by public authority pending trade union organization. Trade boards 
are joint statutory bodies representing not only employers and em- 
ployees but the public, set up by the Minister of Labour, to fix 
such minimum wage rates, enforceable by law. 

The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress in 
affirming its general acceptance of the Whitley Reports makes 
certain reservations. Where well established means exist for 
negotiation between trade unions and employers' associations, the 
Parliamentary Committee (which is the executive of the congress) 
advises that no effort should be made by the government to inter- 
fere with existing arrangements. The committee suggests that, 
wherever alteration in trade rule or custom may be agreed to by 
mutual consent between employers' associations and trade unions, 
the less government interference, the better will be the result ob- 
tained. 



SELF-GOVERNMENT IN INDUSTRY 187 

As to works committees, the Parliamentary Committee urges that 
such committees shall not interfere with the general questions affect- 
ing the working rules of the trade respecting the hours of labor, rates 
of wages, overtime rates. "Such questions ought not to be dealt 
with by a process of shop bargaining as a substitute for the col- 
lective bargaining usually conducted by the responsible and experi- 
enced officials of the unions on behalf of all the workers employed 
either in a particular district or industry." 

In short, the works committee must be a part of the machinery 
of the trade union. In a preceding chapter we saw the shop stew- 
ards committees fighting "the responsible and experienced officials 
of the unions." We saw that their new dynamic is likely to be har- 
nessed to the trade union. We saw that this will remake the struc- 
ture' of the trade union. Clearly, the same process will go on in 
all trades where the works committees are set up. The works 
committees will be close to the rank and file, will be composed of 
them and elected by them. The "responsible and experienced offi- 
cials of the unions" must recognize them, and create a functioning 
place for them in the organism of the trade unions. 

As to industrial councils for industries partially organized, the 
Parliamentary Committee states that councils of this kind shall not 
be accepted as a permanent form of joint activity to act as sub- 
stitutes for the representative bodies which ought to exist for each 
industry. Just as works committees in organized industries must 
not function outside the trade union, so industrial councils in par- 
tially-organized industries must not carry on joint negotiations as 
a final substitute for trade union organization and for the ultimate 
establishment of effective representative bodies of employers and 
of trade unions. 

The principle in these provisos of the Parliamentary Committee 
is that "the extent of state assistance shall vary inversely with the 
degree of organization in industries." Government assistance is not 
an alternative to organic relations between employers and employed. 
It is a step in that direction. As the Government's Reconstruction 
Committee said: 

An essential condition of securing a permanent improvement in 
the relations between employers and employed is that there should 
be adequate organization on the part of both employers and work- 
people. 

The proposals outlined for joint cooperation throughout the sev- 
eral industries depend for their ultimate success upon there being 
such organization on both sides, and such organization is necessary 
also to provide means whereby the arrangements and agreements 
made for the industry may be effectively carried out. 



188 WORKERS' CONTROL 

The trade unions accept this as a desirable policy, but want it 
to stop there. To quote the Parliamentary Committee's report: 

With permanent and direct intervention of government officials 
on joint industrial councils appointed to deal with the detail rela- 
tions of employers and employees we have no sympathy. State 
assistance may, however, take another form. The government may 
by a strict enforcement of the Fair Wages Clause improve the status 
of many industries. 

In short, the government can bring sweated industries up to 
the level where they become organized industries. Then organized 
labor prefers to talk directly with the employers and rely on the 
developing machinery of the trade unions to safeguard themselves; 
the union and the employers' associations forming their own joint 
industrial councils. 1 

But was the government prepared to swallow its own medicine? 
Was it ready to install workers' control in the public services? 
Bonar Law said that it had been decided to adopt in principle the 
application of the Whitley Report to Government Departments, and 
an Inter-Departmental Committee, presided over by the Minister 
of Labour, had been appointed to consider what modifications were 
necessary. This applied to the Post Office, the Railways, and the 
dockyard employees. 

The Ministry of Labour announced: 

Committees mean discussion; discussion takes time; and from 
this point of view it is sometimes argued that a Works Committee 
may tend to slow down the pace of industry; and, again, that it may 
be difficult to convince a committee of the value or the feasibility 
of a new idea or process, so that the way of innovation may be 
somewhat impeded. These are theoretical objections. In practice 
Works Committees — the evidence would suggest — have improved 
time-keeping and increased output. ... In practice, again, they have 
been the opposite of conservative, and instead of checking change 
they have themselves suggested change. . . . They make for better 
relations and greater harmony, and these are the things that matter 
most to industry. More time is gained by the absence of disputes 
than is lost by the presence of discussion. 

1 Self-government in industry clearly precludes autocratic interference 
or domination by the state; but between that and the complete exclusion 
of the public from industrial control is a wide gulf. The three-fold mem- 
bership in the trade boards is not duplicated in the Whitley councils and, 
as we shall see, the relative competence of the two systems in safeguard- 
ing not only the workers but the community is under discussion. The 
propensity of the government to set up Whitley committees in weakly 
organized trades is criticized by J. J. Mallon, secretary of the Anti-Sweat- 
ing League, as prejudicial to the unorganized workers. [See The Toynbee 
Record, November, 1918.] 



SELF-GOVERNMENT IN INDUSTRY 189 

B. Seebohm Rowntree, a constructive leader of the new industrial 
statesmanship, said to us that the shop committee takes the time of 
twelve persons in deciding what one person used to decide, but that 
the fact that twelve persons decided it was a democratic gain. He 
was referring to his own shop committees. 

The firm of Messrs. Reuben Gaunt & Sons, Spinners and Manu- 
facturers, of Forsley, Yorkshire, report of their works committees: 

Democratic control of industry can only come when democracy 
has knowledge and wisdom to assume control. Rightly used, con- 
ferences will provide the necessary experience and education for 
greater responsibility. The two principal factors in the organiza- 
tion of human beings are the spirit and the machinery. In suc- 
cessful cooperation the spirit is more potent than the machinery. 
Mental attitude is of greater consequence than mental capacity. 
Notwithstanding this, the machinery is usually the only factor which 
is accepted consciously and considered in a scientific way. 

To speak precisely, the shop committee covers a particular de- 
partment or shop in a works. The works committee covers the 
whole of a works, and may be industrial, welfare, or social. The 
district council bears much the same relation to a works committee, 
as a works committee does to the shop committee. The district 
council covers all works in an industrial area in a particular industry; 
and matters which it is unable to resolve are in turn carried up to 
the national councils. 

By April, 191 8, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of 
Labour [Bridgeman] stated in the House of Commons that the 
Whitley Report had been circulated to the trade unions and em- 
ployers' associations in all industries to which its recommendations 
were applicable. Negotiations were then taking place in 26 indus- 
tries, covering 3,000,000 workpeople. In twelve of these industries, 
covering 2,000,000 workpeople, joint subcommittees were already 
engaged in drawing up schemes for industrial councils, and in five 
of these industries final agreement upon the actual constitution had 
been practically reached. In the case of one industry — pottery — a 
National Joint Industrial Council had been set up. [Appendix XL] 

The Whitley Committee, Bridgeman added, threw the responsi- 
bility for establishing these councils entirely on the existing organiza- 
tions, and the government had neither the intention nor the wish to 
force the new organization on unwilling industries. 

On July 5, 1918, Bridgeman made public this statement: — 

Two joint industrial councils for the pottery and building indus- 
tries, respectively, have already held their first meetings. Joint 
industrial councils have also been constituted for the heavy chem- 



199 WORKERS' CONTROL 

icals, gold, silver, and kindred trades, rubber and silk industries, 
and the first meetings of these councils will be held during July. 

As a result of conferences, called as a rule by the Minister, 
considerable progress has been made in the following eight indus- 
tries : Baking, cable-making, commercial road transport, electrical 
contracting, furniture manufacture, leather goods and belting, 
matches, and vehicle building. Provisional committees have been 
appointed and have drafted constitutions which have been sent out 
to the various associations concerned for their approval. A consti- 
tution for the printing industry has been drafted, but has not yet 
been sent out to the associations concerned for approval. 

As soon as the constitutions have been approved by the various 
associations, the first meetings of the councils will be arranged. 

In the case of the following five industries, conferences have 
already taken place and have approved of the drafting of consti- 
tutions : Bobbin manufacture, boot and shoe manufacture, elec- 
tricity (power and supply), roller engraving, and woollen and 
worsted. 

In the case of some 20 other industries the associations concerned 
are giving careful consideration to the question of the formation 
of a joint industrial council, and in some of them arrangements 
have been made for summoning joint conferences. 

George R. Roberts, Minister of Labour, reported on August 24, 
1 918, that 9 councils were in existence, 19 in process of formation, 
and 20 in other trades in preliminary conferences. At the close of 
19 1 8, so rapid had been the movement, he could report: 

National joint industrial councils have been established and have 
held one or more full council meetings in the following (twenty) 
industries, namely, baking, bedsteads, bobbins, building, chemical 
trade, china, clay, furniture, gold, silver, horological and allied 
trades, hosiery, leather goods, matches, paint and varnish, pot- 
tery, rubber, silk, vehicle building, woolen and worsted (Scot- 
tish section). In the case of each of these councils the mem- 
bers are showing considerable eagerness to get to grips with the 
important reconstruction and other problems which are facing their 
industries and very satisfactory progress has already been made in 
many directions. In four other industries, namely, municipalities 
(iron-trading services), waterworks, saw-milling, and surgical in- 
struments, the dates for the first meeting of these councils have been 
fixed. Twelve other industries, namely, boot and shoe, cable-making, 
commercial road transport, electrical contracting, electricity (power 
and supply), needles and fish-hooks, newspapers, paper-making, 
printing, roller engraving, tin mining, woolen and worsted, have al- 
ready established provisional committees to draw up constitutions for 
joint industrial councils, and the proceedings have reached an ad- 
vanced stage in many of these cases. In a number of other indus- 



SELF-GOVERNMENT IN INDUSTRY 191 

tries the Ministry of Labour is giving assistance in setting up coun- 
cils. The government have approved a scheme dealing with the 
application of the Whitley report to the industrial establishment of 
the government, and immediate steps are being taken to place the 
scheme before the trade unions and departments concerned. A sub- 
committee of the interdepartmental committee on the application of 
the Whitley Report to government establishments is considering the 
question of its application to the clerical and administrative classes 
of the civil service. Arrangements have been made for hearing evi- 
dence from representatives of civil service associations. 

An official leaflet has recently 'been issued entitled "Industrial 
Councils: The Recommendations of the Whitley Report," which 
gives an outline of the principal recommendations of the report, in 
order that they may be made as widely known as possible among 
the members of employers' and workpeople's associations. The sec- 
tions of the leaflet dealing with "Industrial Councils and the Gov- 
ernment" and "The Need for Industrial Councils" are as follows: 

Industrial Councils and the Government 

The primary object of Industrial Councils then is to regularize 
the relations between employers and employed. But they will serve 
another urgent need and, in so doing, will give to workpeople a 
status in their respective industries that they have not had hitherto. 
There is a large body of problems which belong both to industry 
and to politics. 

They belong to politics, because the community is responsible 
for their solution and the state must act as if no other provision 
is made; they belong to industry, because they can be solved only 
by the knowledge and experience of the people actually engaged in 
industry. Such problems are the regularization of employment, 
industrial training, utilization of inventions, industrial research, the 
improvement of designs and quality, legislation affecting workshop 
conditions — all of them questions which have hitherto been left in 
the main to employers, but which in reality constitute an important 
common interest on the basis of which all engaged in an industry 
can meet. The termination of the war will bring with it a mass 
of new problems of this nature; for example, demobilization, the 
training of apprentices whose apprenticeship was interrupted by 
military service, the settlement in industry of partially disabled 
men, and, in general, the reconversion of industry to the purposes 
of peace. It is urgently necessary that the government should be 
able to obtain without delay the experience and views of the people 
actually in industry on all these questions. It proposes, therefore, 
to treat Industrial Councils as Standing Consultative Committees to 
the government and the normal channel through which it will seek 
the experience and advice of industries. Further, many of these 
problems can be handled by each industry by itself, provided that 



i 9 2 WORKERS' CONTROL 

it has an organization representative of all sections and interests 
within it. The establishment of Industrial Councils will, therefore, 
make unnecessary a large amount of "government interference," 
which is at present unavoidable, and substitute for it a real meas- 
ure of "self-government" in industry. 

The Need for Industrial Councils 

While there is no doubt that every industry has problems which 
can be solved only if the experience of every grade and section of 
the industry is brought to bear on them, hitherto the tendency has 
been for every grade and section to go its own way. Whenever the 
government wishes to ascertain the needs and opinions of an indus- 
try, instead of one organization speaking with a single voice, a 
dozen organizations speak with a dozen voices. The different sec- 
tions and interests are organized and can put their point of view; 
the industry as a whole has no representative organization, so that 
the general interest of the industry may be overlooked. Sectional 
interests often conflict; there is no need for example to disguise 
the conflict of interests between employers and employed; and the 
Whitley Report proposes nothing of the nature of compulsory 
arbitration, nothing that will limit or interfere with the right to 
lockout or strike. But no one in industry wants an unnecessary 
stoppage; these can be prevented only by the representatives of 
conflicting interests meeting to thrash out their differences; and 
all the problems that will face industry after the war call for con- 
tinuous consultation and cooperation of all sections, grades, and 
interests. For every reason, therefore, industrial councils, fully 
representative of all sections and interests in each industry, are an 
urgent necessity. 

In some industries there exist already joint conciliation boards 
performing some of the functions of industrial councils. These are, 
however, as a rule, limited either in the work they undertake or 
in the sections of the industry which they represent. Although, 
therefore, existing joint boards will in many cases provide the basis 
for industrial councils, they cannot handle the problems, referred to 
above, with which the industries of the country will be faced after 
the war. What is needed is an organization representing the whole 
industry and capable of speaking for all the firms and all the work- 
people employed in it. The government's adoption of the Whitley 
Report is simply an invitation to the industries of the country to 
organize themselves in this way, for their own benefit and for the 
benefit of the community. 

To summarize Part IV: we have shown the movement toward 
workers' control manifested in spontaneous action by the workers 
themselves through the shop stewards, the railwaymen, the miners, 
the higher officials of the engineers, and others. We have shown 
it furthered by progressive employers, such as Renold, and Rown- 



SELF-GOVERNMENT IN INDUSTRY 193 

tree. We have shown the government promoting it in the con- 
trolled munitions factories, in the civil service and through the 
Whitley Reports. 

It remains to be brought out that the area over which these 
going experiments operate is the area of workshop and factory con- 
ditions and processes. But the area of production is vastly wider 
than this. The democratic government of the factory is not self- 
government in industry. It is a first step. British industrial history 
of the next fifty years will be concerned with larger applications. 
The control of workshop conditions and processes is not control 
of the product. As Cole says: 

Capitalist control of the product has three principal aspects. It 
is expressed in the financial system by which the great investors and 
syndicates regulate the flow of capital; in the control of raw mate- 
rials — buying, and in the control of the finished product — selling. 

As a war measure the Control Board in the Woollen and Worsted 
Industries determined the allocation of the wool available for the 
civilian trade, and regulated the hours and conditions of working. 
This Board of Control consisted of thirty-three members, eleven 
nominated by the War Office, eleven by the employers' associations, 
eleven by the trade unions. An Order in Council defined the powers 
of the board. Thus the distribution of raw material as well as labor 
conditions passed under collective democratic control. A loosely 
organized private industry has been lifted to the level of a respon- 
sible national service under the mutual economic government of 
employers, employees and the public. 

In the spring of 19 18, Dr. Addison (then Minister of Reconstruc- 
tion) called a meeting of Associations of Employers and Trade 
Unions in the saddlery, harness and equipment, light leather goods, 
and belting industries. He said he wished to receive suggestions for 
"a joint council about raw material requirements." 

The Cotton Control Board in Lancashire has 21 members, rep- 
resenting the spinners and manufacturers, cotton associations, a 
Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, and the trade unions. 
It has power to fix the price daily. George A. Greenwood in the 
English World's Work for December, 1918, says that these woollen 
and cotton boards show that 

the government may claim as a function the protection of the larger 
mass of consumers from either cornering or profiteering on the part 
of the smaller body of producers. Employers, guaranteed their fair 
share of raw material, may be told at what they must sell. Not less 
important is the establishment in practice of the right of the trade 
unions to a voice in the control of industry. 



i 9 4 WORKERS' CONTROL 

The Ministry of Labour states that one of the questions where 

the government will need the united and considered opinion of 
each large industry (management and workers) is the control of 
raw materials. The councils will be recognized as the official stand- 
ing consultative committees to the government. It is intended that 
industrial councils should play a definite and permanent part in the 
economic life of the country. 

Thus the area of self-government in industry widens. The old 
order of autocratic management is passing. The new order of indus- 
trial democracy begins slowly, painfully, to be established. 



The forces at work at the elbow of very British wage earner are 
now before us; forces which reacted umulatively upon the war 
time development of the political labo, movement (as interpreted 
in Part III); and impelled both the economic and political arms 
of the movement — the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party 
— to claim a hearing for the workers in war and in peace and to 
reach out toward corresponding groups in other countries (as inter- 
preted in Parts I and II). In Part V, we shall follow these various 
strands of interest throughout 191 8 — economic, political, inter-Al- 
lied, international — and endeavor to throw light on the relation 
borne toward them by American labor and the American Republic, 
both of which might be presupposed to be sympathetic toward the 
struggle for democracy of the mother country at home as well as in 
the field. 



PART V 
THE NEW ALIGNMENT 



CHAPTER XVII 

THE JUBILEE YEAR OF THE BRITISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS 

If an unsophisticated citizen of the United States had arrived 
in Derby on September i, 1918, or thereabouts, he would have spent 
the first hours of his visit asking questions. He would have wanted 
to know why it was that, with paper at famine prices, leaflets were 
falling on delegates like "blessed rain from Heaven." He would 
have wanted to know why it was that the head of the Sailors' and 
Firemen's Union should erect a large marquee in the Market Square 
and invite all who cared to do so to take lunch with him without 
charge. He would have wanted to know what the prime minister 
of Australia was doing at this lunch (besides eating his share of 
it) and why, himself a labor leader, he should go out of his way 
to revile ideals which generations of working men in all countries 
had agreed to keep sacred. 

He would have wanted to know why, if the leaders of British 
trades unionism thought it proper to boycott this lunch, veteran 
Samuel Gompers, whom, as representing the United States, every- 
body delighted to honor, thought it proper to be present at it. He 
might even have wanted to know who paid for the lunch, and whether 
the function of a brass band, which made much noise during the 
proceedings, was to conceal the paucity of applause called forth 
by the somewhat acidulous eloquence of Premier Hughes. 

"It would not be possible to answer all the questions of such a 
visitor," wrote a British correspondent to The Survey, "but one 
might tell him in general terms that the trade union world was 
increasing its power and prestige by leaps and bounds; that it now 
numbered nearly five million adherents, including three-quarters of 
a million women, and that the inrush was continuing and quickening; 
that all but a few of these members would have votes under the 
Representation of the People Act, and that, in consequence, the 
political power of the unions would also be increased and might, in 
the future, be decisive; that this prospect was leading to many at- 
tempts to 'nobble' labor and would probably produce an epidemic of 
free lunches, at most of which the prime minister of Australia (who 
had become so devoted to the British Islands that he had apparently 
forgotten his own) might be expected to be present. As for Samuel 

197 



198 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

Gompers, one would say that after all he had not spoken as fero- 
ciously as our yellow press had led us to expect him to do; that 
doubtless he had failed as yet accurately to take his bearings and 
that when he had done so, his native acumen would probably lead 
him to select his luncheon parties with greater care. 

"And with this prelude one would leave the visitor to enter 
the congress in the sure hope that with open eyes and ears he 
could not fail to arrive at just conclusions." 

It is as little possible as it is desirable to refer to all the reso^ 
lutions adopted by this fifth annual meeting in war-time of the 
British Trades Union Congress, this fiftieth since its founding. The 
address of the chairman and the subsequent debates gave chief 
place to questions we shall explore in this and succeeding chapters, 
such questions as the dispute on passports, the attempts to form a 
purely trade union political party, the antagonisms which threatened 
to separate the congress from the Labour Party on the one hand 
and from the General Federation of Trades Unions on the other, 
the question most of all of the war policy of British labor; — the 
relation to these questions of the American labor leadership. 

If ever modesty, sincerity and disinterestedness spoke out of 
the mouth of a man it spoke out of the mouth of J. W. Ogden. 
Ogden is not a lion of the world of labor, but he is endeared to it 
by qualities of the head and the heart. Lancashire weavers, of 
whom he is one, are said to say little and think a lot. That cer- 
tainly is Ogden's way. One feels in listening to him that he talks 
merely because he has something imperative to say. And again 
like the weavers, he abhors rhetoric or any type or degree of over- 
emphasis or exaggeration. In his address to the congress appeared 
the candor and exactitude of his mind and the care, even the pains, 
with which he had worked his way to convictions. 

Havelock Wilson and his colleagues have never loved the polit- 
ical Labour Party, and now, aided by Hughes and some scores of 
camp followers, they were seeking under various pretenses to dis- 
rupt it. Ogden, without mentioning them, sent a heavy censure 
in their direction. Experience had taught him that unless working 
men act together in politics they cannot act together successfully 
in industry. 

On another subject, that of the struggle threatening to become 
bitter between craft and industrial unions, Ogden had something 
to say of interest to American labor organizers. Between the con- 
flicting claims of these types of union, the Parliamentary Commit- 
tee of the British Congress has some jurisdiction, but it is not 
enough to enable it to penetrate the tangle of overlapping federa- 
tions, confederations and amalgamations and the interests and 



JUBILEE YEAR 199 

jealousies that have grown up in these. The policy of President 
Ogden was one that might be derided if its author were less expe- 
rienced, sober and shrewd — the proposal of one all-embracing trade 
union within which, with expert help, the wage-earners might place 
themselves in their natural logical groups. 

But it was on the overhanging issues of war and peace that 
Ogden's speech was of most effect. That there was any weakening 
in the determination of the British democracy to attain the objects 
for which the nation entered the war, or any attempt (in dealing 
with the labor movement in enemy countries) to trespass on the 
functions of central government, he denied. The labor movement, 
however, had the power to render moral support to the armies 
that fight for democracy as it had the duty to assist mankind to 
achieve righteousness and peace. The " awful work" of the sword 
had been done for four years and was still to do. Labor could no 
longer be supine. Ogden stood, therefore, for conference while war 
was on between the several labor movements, not to negotiate a 
peace, which is a function of central government, but to exchange 
views, remove misunderstandings and perhaps show governments 
the way to reunite humanity over the chasm in which its youth 
and happiness had been rapidly perishing. "Godspeed to the Inter- 
national," cried Ogden, and the solemn audience all but echoed 
"Amen." 

This weaver's speech, in which any one who desired to might 
find the heart of British labor laid bare, prepared the way for a 
discussion on peace in which the standing committee submitted a 
resolution. The resolution (page 264) reaffirmed the demand of the 
Blackpool congress twelve months earlier for an international con- 
ference, requested the labor parties of the Central Powers to table 
their answer to the war aims memorandum drawn seven months 
earlier by the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conference at 
London and called upon the government to open negotiations as 
soon as the enemy, voluntarily or by compulsion, evacuated France 
and Belgium. It lost nothing by being committed to J. H. Thomas. 
Americans are acquainted with his buoyant and virile personality. 
His present commanding place in labor politics is due as much 
to his insight and generalship as to his extraordinary energy and 
staying power. It owes a little also to the sense of fun which 
made him during the congress a thorn in the flesh of Havelock 
Wilson and the destroyer of most of that gentleman's platitudes. 
At a great open-air "pro-Ally demonstration," Thomas turned up 
in the audience, and, after Havelock Wilson had uttered his usual 
plea for a five years' boycott of Germany, went on to the platform 
ostensibly to support that proposition. Poor Wilson's face grew 



200 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

longer as the speech of his supporter proceeded. At the end of 
the meeting when the crowd had forgotten the "boycott" and were 
cheering rapturously for a league of nations, it would have made 
an inimitable "Melancholia." 

Later at the Congress when the boycott resolution did duty 
once again and Wilson buttressed it with a sweeping attack on 
internationalism and "peace by negotiation," Thomas made the 
hit of the week by reading a quotation from which it appeared 
that Wilson himself, at a conference of his union subsequent to 
the sinking of the Lusitania, had resisted "from an international 
point of view" substantially the very resolution that he was now 
intemperately supporting. 

Moving the peace resolution, Thomas added to his successes 
in a speech of unusual dignity and power illumined by a declara- 
tion that British labor would not "sacrifice one life to add a yard to 
the territory of the empire" and by a demand that the Allies should 
state their terms once and for all so these would not change with 
the war map as did the terms of the Germans. Here again Wilson 
was an obscurantist, and though the resolution was in the nature 
of a compromise between the dominant groups in the congress, he 
struck at it viciously. His friends in other tussles, however, lightly 
abandoned him in this, and the resolution was adopted with prac- 
tical unanimity. [See Chapter XXL] 

Peace was again the theme when a day later delegates from 
the United States and Canada and from the British Labour Party 
brought to the congress the fraternal greetings of their organiza- 
tions. Samuel Gompers (the lunch forgotten) was naturally hero 
of this occasion and was given an ovation as a patriarch of labor, 
such as any leader might treasure. His speech, as well as his pres- 
ence, was cheered. British democracy counts association with 
America as the biggest event not only of the war but of modern 
history, and Gompers could not too often refer to it. The Boer 
War and Home Rule are less easy themes, but on neither of them 
did the veteran speak too strongly for the taste of his audience. 
British labor does not equivocate either on Ireland or South Africa, 
and it would gladly concede to these peoples the right it is assert- 
ing for others. 

Henderson, who followed Gompers, frankly admitted that the 
British and American labor organizations were not in accord on 
the proposed international labor conference. Their aims were, 
however, identical, and the difference in method might be min- 
imized or removed at the forthcoming Allied Labour Conference in 
London. Henderson in resounding sentences came near to repeat- 
ing his great triumph of twelve months before. He was stirring 



JUBILEE YEAR 201 

in repudiating any aspersions on the determination of British labor, 
stirring in glorifying the crusade which the two nations were pur- 
suing together against imperialism, stirring most of all in proclaim- 
ing the beneficence of the sovereignty soon to be wielded by a 
league of nations. 

Henderson left these capital questions for a moment to strike 
obliquely at the proposal to form a separate trade union political 
party. It should be noted that those who initiated this proposal 
were chiefly trade union leaders who in the past had denied the 
necessity for any political labor party at all. Havelock Wilson 
and W. J. Davis, for example, are ancient members of the Liberal 
Party whose attitude to labor candidates was from the start one 
of consistent hostility. , Their case against the British Labour 
Party was then that it was too narrow and sectarian; now, that 
the party had altered its constitution and admits individual mem- 
bers who subscribe to the party objects as well as those who come 
in indirectly as members of trade unions or socialist organizations. 
The party is too wide! Davis expressed horror that out of four 
labor candidates adopted for Birmingham, one was a lawyer and 
two were doctors — without understanding that the precise object 
of enlarging the scope of the party was to bring into it men of the 
professional classes exactly as such men are brought into the social- 
ist and labor parties on the continent. The debate soon betrayed 
its unreality and showed Wilson making one more attempt for 
some obscure purpose of his own, to frustrate the hopes which 
the new Labour Party was inspiring in all parts of the United 
Kingdom. That the congress knew how to reward his plotting was 
shown by a contemptuous dismissal of the resolution. [See Chap- 
ter XXL] 

The quarrel between the General Federation of Trade Unions 
and the combined Labour Party and Trades Union Congress grew 
out of the lethargy of the last named body in the realm of interna- 
tional affairs. On the other hand, the federation's activity achieved 
a prominence abroad unsupported either by the membership of the 
federation or the part accredited it in the British trade union 
scheme. The original function of the federation was to facilitate 
the insurance of unions against the heavy liabilities of strikes. 
Insofar as it goes beyond this function, it collides with the Trades 
Union Congress, which is generally recognized as the body entitled 
to pronounce on industrial issues, or with the Labour Party which 
similarly has held jurisdiction in political affairs. The confusion 
between these bodies led, after his arrival and before, to a struggle 
for the body of Samuel Gompers, Appleton of the federation and 
Bowerman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union 



202 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

Congress busily arranging conferences for the distinguished visitor 
that conflicted with each other. [See Chapters XIX and XXII.] 

The question of passports raised the congress to much indigna- 
tion. Even delegates who could see a certain reason in the refusal 
to permit British labor leaders to meet or treat with members of 
enemy countries, could see none at all in the denial of a 
passport to enable their elected representative, Margaret Bondfield, 
to transmit their greetings to the American Federation of Labor. 
They resented, too, the hypocrisy of the denial. Admitting that 
a war regulation prohibited women and children from traveling 
overseas save in cases of exceptional and urgent necessity, they 
pointed out that the regulation had been waived in the case of 
Mrs. Pankhurst. Why was the government more solicitous for 
the safety of Miss Bondfield than for that of Mrs. Pankhurst, or, 
alternately, in what was the business of Mrs. Pankhurst, who repre- 
sented nobody but herself, more "exceptional and urgent" than the 
business of Miss Bondfield, the representative of wage-earners num- 
bered in millions? 

It was with justice that delegates alleged a claim on the part 
of the government to decide exactly what type of trade union opin- 
ion it would allow to be represented in America, and with an ele- 
mentary exercise of proper spirit that steps were taken to contest 
the claim by this, the industrial commons of Great Britain. 

For this jubilee meeting, which reaffirmed the attitude of trade 
union England toward the continuance of the war, toward an unim- 
perialistic peace and toward the "diplomacy of democracy" — which 
reasserted the cohesion of the forces of labor against the efforts 
to separate the industrial and political arms of the movement, — 
and which sustained the leadership of that "new majority" which 
we saw crystallize in the conferences twelve months before, — this 
meeting in itself represented the largest membership of wage earn- 
ers ever mustered into one national body. Small wonder that the 
impulses toward self-determination aroused by the war should assert 
themselves here. 

In 1 868, when the first congress met in Manchester, 34 dele- 
gates were present, and they represented 118,367 members of trade 
unions. The Derby Congress was attended by nearly 900 dele- 
gates representing between four and five million members. "The 
numerical progress of the Congress during this half century," said 
the London Times, "is a rough measure of its growth in power as 
the instrument for expressing the political and social views and 
aspirations of the working people." "The power- of labor has 
doubled during the war," said the British Premier in welcoming 
President Gompers to England, a fortnight earlier. As compared 



JUBILEE YEAR 203 

even with the Congress at Blackpool the year before, the meeting 
showed a remarkable advance in point of numbers, for the return 
of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, which had held aloof 
for several years, the adhesion of the Workers' Union and the Iron- 
founders' Society and the increase in the membership of other 
unions, had raised the strength of the Congress during the year by 
nearly 500,000 affiliated members. 

On the whole, it was a great and encouraging congress, great 
in its unprecedented numbers and encouraging in that it kept its 
faith and its equilibrium and refused to be led away from the 
great objects which trade unionism has immediately to gain. It 
was, however, also a congress of undercurrents which Havelock 
Wilson busily kept in motion. The lavish expenditure of money, 
his own or somebody's else, by this labor official aroused comment 
which was not lessened by Thomas' revelation of the suddenness 
of the spender's conversion to the policy of the economic boycott. 
What, to put it bluntly, was Wilson after? There were many re- 
plies to this question, but the reply having most support was sug- 
gested by a representative of the ship stewards, who told Wilson 
that there was "political faking" behind his crusade, and deplored 
the circumstance that "the dead bodies of seamen should be used 
in playing the low-down game of tariff reform." 



CROSS CURRENTS IN THE ECONOMIC FIELD 

The nature of those currents will be clearer if we retrace some 
of the events of the months preceding Derby which had revealed the 
tensile strength of the "new majority," in the political and economic 
fields. Political developments and the part which American labor, 
wittingly or unwittingly, came to play in them will be taken up in 
later chapters. Here, let us deal with friction between the govern- 
ment and the workers in the industrial field; — strikes on a scale 
which, whatever their justification, might jeopardize the supreme 
business the nation had in hand, and, more, the outcroppings on 
the extreme left of mass sentiment for direct economic action to 
force the government to begin negotiations and end the war. 

In the early winter of 19 17- 18, the belief that there was a mil- 
itary stalemate on the western front and a feeling of impotence 
in pressing the government to outflank it by democratic statesman- 
ship, were current in all walks of life in England. They found 
characteristic expression in the industrial centers in demonstra- 
tions against any coercive measures associated with the govern- 
ment's war policies. Moreover, the rise of Bolshevikism to power 



264 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

in Russia, was not without its reaction in working-class circles the 
world over. 

The background of social unrest to the Nottingham meeting in 
January, 1918, has been brought out. Within the following fortnight 
there was a clash in the munitions trades over the application of 
the man-power bill and we find Henderson, on the one hand, urg- 
ing the government to meet the Amalgamated Society of Engineers 
in conference, in line with what its members understood to have 
been a pledge, and, on the other hand, charging the workers not 
to lay down tools in an effort to coerce the government to begin 
peace negotiations. He said (February, 19 18): 

We are all weary of war. Immediate peace is the greatest need 
of the world. But peace cannot be achieved by one section of 
labor acting by itself. Peace will come when the working-class 
movement as a whole has discovered by conference the conditions 
of an honorable and democratic peace worthy of the unimaginable 
sacrifices the people have made. 

The temper of the workmen is most dangerous. The unyielding 
attitude of the government is bringing the country to the verge of 
industrial revolution, and unless a more just and reasonable atti- 
tude is adopted I am seriously apprehensive that an irreparable 
break between an important section of industrial labor and the 
government will result. . . . 

In the past, labor has responded with real patriotism, fully and 
freely. Is it too much to appeal to the patriotism of the govern- 
ment? I strongly urge the government to display a more reason- 
able spirit. 

Hasty measures of the kind contemplated may not only embarrass 
those of us who are trying to promote a moral and political offensive 
on the part of the working classes and destroy their unity. They 
also may give to the reactionary forces further opportunities to 
divide and weaken our efforts. Democratic diplomacy has begun. 
. . . Peace must be made on these tens and on no other. That 
is our policy. It will be presented as a moral ultimatum to the 
governments from an organized democracy in all the belligerent 
governments. I appeal in all earnestness to the workers not to wreck 
this great triumph of the international working-class movement in 
the field of diplomacy by a precipitate action which can only end in 
discrediting and defeating the democratic cause. 

During the sobering weeks ushered in by the enemy offensive 
in March, British labor closed its ranks before the threat of a 
military decision against the Allies. Meetings of district and na- 
tional unions voted down resolutions declaring that the war was 
being prolonged for materialistic and capitalistic objects, and that 
labor should cease its support of the government. The National 



JUBILEE YEAR 205 

Union of Dock Labourers (James Sexton, secretary) sent a cir- 
cular appealing to the workers to put aside any grievances they 
might have and "to put in all they know how" in the greatest crisis 
the nation had ever faced. Sexton is of the right; but turn to the 
miners, under the lead of Smillie of the left. The miners had just 
tallied an adverse ballot on whether they approved a further comb- 
out in the coal fields. In many union quarters, the comb-out was 
mistrusted as a move calculated to weaken the strength of the 
unions, eliminate their organizers and favor the dilutes. When 
the German drive began, the Prime Minister placed the army's 
necessities before representatives of the federation. The executive 
thereupon recommended that the miners use the federation's own 
machinery to facilitate the comb-out. Moreover, a new flow of 
volunteering set in which, in time, with the loss of French pits, 
actually became a source of national embarrassment. In the muni- 
tion trades, the Prime Minister had on February 28 and March 8 
cut the tangle as to negotiations by himself receiving a deputation 
from the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and a compromise had 
been arrived at; but on March 21, an unofficial conference at 
Manchester passed drastic resolutions for a general strike on April 
6, unless orders for the comb-out were previously withdrawn. Here 
again, the effect of the German offensive was instant and complete, 
and the arrangements committee responsible for calling the Man- 
chester conference rescinded the resolutions there passed. 



THE IRISH CRISIS 

Moreover, when in the midst of the crisis, the government came 
forward with its dual conscription-home-rule policy for Ireland, 
British labor did not content itself with mere parliamentary opposi- 
tion to the former and advocacy of the latter. 

J. H. Thomas went to Ireland. His address at a meeting on 
April 28 in the Mansion House, Dublin, on "Conscription: Is a 
Solution Possible?" as reported in the Times is a good reflection of 
the attitude at the crisis of the "new majority." It at once was a 
clear statement of British labor's opposition to coercive militarism 
by whomsoever practised; and a ringing verdict as to where the 
scales tipped between the British cause and the Prussian: 

Mr. Thomas said he voted against conscription. (A voice: Why- 
did you go on recruiting platforms?) He could not consistently 
oppose conscription unless he did something for voluntarism. 
(Hisses.) He asked Irishmen to try to understand his point of 
view. He had opposed conscription, when he had been howled down 



206 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

in Parliament and ridiculed and condemned, but he stuck to his 
ground because he believed that conscription was wrong. He had 
taken his stand on recruiting because he believed that Belgium had 
been violated. (A laugh.) He did not apologize for it. He believed 
that when Belgium was violated there was a moral obligation upon 
him to fight the Germans, and he was glad to say that many Irish- 
men acted on the same idea. Just as he felt then that he would 
fight against brute force and take his stand against any Power that 
assumed that might was right, so he took his stand to-day, in spite 
of any opposition, sneers, or jeers, and he said that he would rather 
that he himself and his family should be entirely wiped out than 
that he should see the Germans ruling in his country. Those who 
listened to him might take the opposite view. (Cries of "We don't.") 
But if they did they had no right to deny him his point of view. 

British labor was not blind to the fact that conscription was 
foreign to their principles and to liberty; that it entrenched militar- 
ism, and that they had got to fight as strenuously against the setting 
up of English militarism as against German militarism. Feeling as 
he did that on principle, apart from any question of expediency, con- 
scription was wrong, he entirely agreed that nothing was so mean 
and so contemptible as the suggestion that Home Rule was to be 
given to them as a bargain for accepting something that they abso- 
lutely detested. (Cries of "We don't want it.") As one who be- 
lieved in self-determination, he resented as bitterly as Irishmen did 
that such a bargain should be proposed. Nothing in his judgment 
showed such a want of statesmanship as the action of the Govern- 
ment in that connection. He believed in Home Rule because he 
believed that it was impossible to govern a country against the 
wishes and will of the people. Welshmen and Scotchmen, as well 
as Irishmen, said precisely the same thing — that no British Govern- 
ment could govern them as well as they themselves could. 

Looking at the position honestly and dispassionately, he said that 
the war had brought problems that compelled consideration of the 
question of Irish self-government in a different light. He believed 
that a profound blunder had been made, and the Government must 
retrieve that blunder. Therefore he asked Irishmen not to be swayed 
by passion or carried away by resentment, but to realize that, serious 
as their position had been in the past, it was nothing comparable 
with the gravity and seriousness of the position now. 

A tragedy was likely to arise if common sense, prudent states- 
manship, and above all confidence in each other, were not exercised 
to avert it. (Cheers.) He begged them to believe that the British 
democracy was anxious to do justice to Ireland, and he asked them 
to remember that nothing would be more fatal to the interests of 
Irish workers, or the interests of British workers, than a rupture 
between those of both countries. There was not a home in Great 
Britain where the father and mother were not throbbing with 
anxiety for some one far away. Referring to an interruption, he 
said it was lost on one whose boy was fighting at the front. A 



JUBILEE YEAR 207 

victory for Germany would be the end both of liberty and of 
democracy; and they had no right to challenge the honor of those 
who were prepared to lay down their lives for the cause of the 
Allies. 

THE LABOR EMBARGOES 

By midsummer, with the German drive blunted and turned back, 
restlessness at industrial conditions at home again asserted itself, 
and there came a series of strikes of London police, the tube and 
bus-women, the munitions workers, and the railroaders. Old impa- 
tience at the government's foreign policy reawakened; old suspi- 
cions that profiteering and anti-union interests were, under cover 
of the war, driving an entering wedge for sweated labor and indus- 
trial conscription. 

Allegations of attempts to break down trade union standards 
came out in the traction strike when a committee representing the 
employees gave out a statement on July 28 saying: 

Women are receiving less wages than men, in our case by 12s. 
6d., and we wish the country to know that we have secured definite 
evidence that the railways in general have been refusing to employ 
discharged soldiers and are employing women instead at a lower 
rate of wages. 

This is a serious matter to soldiers who have been promised 
their jobs on their return, and it is even more serious for those 
men who will be demobilized at the end of the war. If they are 
to be faced by the competition of cheaper women labor, the period 
of reconstruction will be marked by great unrest throughout the 
labor world, which will be a danger to the welfare of the whole 
country. 

Women, practically all of whom have husbands or sons at the 
front, are determined that they are not going to cheapen labor at 
the expense of the soldiers. 

The issue of industrial conscription came up in the midlands. 
The spring comb-out and volunteering had cut down the supply 
of skilled labor at the same time that an augmented demand for 
various kinds of munitions made the need for such labor acute. 
Certain firms were charged with engrossing more than their fair 
share by ''labor poaching," and the Ministry of Munitions issued an 
embargo on three of them in Coventry. It added to a list of 
bureaucratic blunders in the past by failing to explain its course 
to the workers. One of the firms (the Hotchkiss Company) dis- 
tributed a provocative notice to foremen which fell into the hands of 
the shop stewards. This notice stated that they were prohibited 
from engaging "skilled men" of any type and defined the term 



208 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

as meaning any men in receipt of the standard district rate. It 
went on to say that every effort must be made "whenever it is 
necessary to employ men, to make use only of semi-skilled or 
unskilled men." "The circulation among skilled men of such a 
statement without any explanation," said the Times, editorially, 
"was like throwing lighted matches about a filling factory. It 
would look to them like the beginning of a campaign to oust them 
out of employment, drive them into the army and lower wages. 
We can hardly wonder that they took alarm." They did just that — 
struck against the advice of the local union committee and the 
strike spread to Birmingham. 

It should be remembered that as a body the skilled men in the 
munition trades had not in any sense been slackers. Earlier in 
the war the pressure of both government and public opinion was 
brought to bear upon them to keep them at their crucial posts in 
the rapidly expanding war industries, and to bring back those who 
had enlisted. The way the situation provoked by the embargo 
was approached from four different angles was illuminating and 
characteristic: 

(a) To quote a news report: 

The Minister of Munitions (Winston Churchill) made a belated 
movement to bring the facts before the workmen by distributing 
handbills and announced by public proclamation that any person 
who was guilty of inciting others to leave work, or took any part 
in organizing a strike, rendered himself liable to very serious pen- 
alties under the Defence of the Realm Act. The Ministry also 
gave a significant reminder to the young men in munition factories 
that only the fact that they were absolutely needed at their work, 
and were loyally willing to do their work, had justified their exemp- 
tion from military service. 

(b) The Minister of Labour (George Roberts), addressing the 
London Master Printers' Association, admonished those "misled 
people" that were striking. 

against the state, against the government, who were sharing all the 
responsibility — a heavy responsibility under the most favorable cir- 
cumstances — of prosecuting the war to the only issue they could 
contemplate, the absolute success of the Allied cause . . . Public opin- 
ion would agree that those men ought not to be exempted from the 
operations of those [Military Service] acts. 

(c) J. Havelock Wilson, of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, 
issued a message: 



JUBILEE YEAR 209 

The seamen and firemen who daily risk and sacrifice their lives 
to carry food to the working men and their families appeal to the 
trades unionists involved in munitions dispute not to betray their 
country. Never mind government departments, employers, embar- 
goes, or other inconveniences. When we have won the war we 
will support you through thick and thin in maintaining the prin- 
ciples of trades unionism, for which some of us have worked and 
suffered all our lives. Don't be misled by the Bolshies, who are 
the greatest enemies of trades unionism. Fifteen thousand non- 
combatant seafaring men have been foully murdered by the Huns. 
Are you going to fight the Government over an embargo instead of 
doing your bit to destroy Prussian militarism and all it stands for? 

(d) J. H. Thomas, M. P., speaking at a large meeting of rail- 
waymen at Weston-super-Mare, said: 

The attention of the country focused on the prospect of a serious 
dispute in the engineering industry. To those who were abusing the 
engineers he would say, "Stop this fooling," and to the engineers 
themselves his words were, "Don't forget the nation's difficulty. 
Don't forget what is due to our soldiers at the front, and, above all, 
remember that loyalty to your* own executive is a fundamental of 
trade unionism." It ought not to be impossible for the present trou- 
ble to be adjusted. 

As it was: the government appointed a Committee on Labour 
Embargoes consisting of representatives of employers and em- 
ployees, under the presidency of Justice McCardie, which recom- 
mended that changes in government policy with respect to muni- 
tion work should be "immediately and effectively" communicated to 
employers and workmen concerned, both centrally and locally, to 
secure their confidence and cooperation, and that a joint committee 
consisting of the representatives of both should be established forth- 
with, under a chairman appointed by the government, to advise the 
Admiralty and Ministry of Munitions on such matters. 

THE RAILROAD FLARE-UP 

Here we had responsible leaders of the new majority, like 
Thomas, throwing their weight against either bureaucrats or em- 
ployers who ran roughshod over constitutional labor procedure at 
a time when a stoppage of work was of national concern. Shortly 
thereafter, we find these leaders joining issue with forces which 
flouted it from the opposite quarter. 

The National Union of Railwaymen is the largest single trade 
union in Great Britain, with a membership of 400,000, and branches 
throughout the country to the number of 1300; Thomas, as gen- 



2io THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

eral secretary, received the largest vote given any officer. At the 
annual conference at Edinburgh, in June, he pointed out that 
"without once having to threaten or attempt a stoppage of work, 
the union had succeeded in improving the condition of its mem- 
bers, at the same time keeping clearly in mind their responsibility 
to the nation engaged in a life and death struggle." An insurgent 
strike among the railwaymen broke out in September (191 8), a 
fortnight following the Derby Conference, and Thomas went to 
the mat. 

The South Wales miners had by a threat of strike secured an 
increase of nine shillings a week. The railway men wanted ten, 
and as result of negotiations between the government and a dele- 
gate conference were awarded five — equivalent to a cumulative 
increase of 120 per cent over their pre-war wage. Moreover, ma- 
chinery was provided for automatic revisions to meet further in- 
creases. This provision does not seem to have been generally under- 
stood. The South Wales railwaymen returned from the negotia- 
tions dissatisfied, holding that the settlement should not have been 
accepted without a mandate from the full membership of the union. 
The enginemen, 1 the highest paid, believed that their increase was 
not proportionate. Ten men on a branch line quit; a self-consti- 
tuted strike committee set up at Newport, and within two days 
the strike had spread to London. While it involved a compara- 
tively small number of men, they were so placed that traffic was 
tied up on the Great Western; 100,000 miners were thrown out of 
work; food, hospital and troop train service was interrupted. Charges 
were subsequently made in the London papers that the strike was 
instigated by stop-the-war propagandists. It was at least a sec- 
tional effort in which the rank and file sought to take things into 
their own hands, demanding either the concession of their full 
demand or the reopening of negotiations in which the government 
should treat not with the recognized officers, but with delegates 
to be appointed by the strikers. 

The Board of Trade put its case in a statement issued at mid- 
night on September 23: 

... It is obvious that unless there is some authority which can 
negotiate and accept a settlement on behalf of the men, and which 
is loyally accepted by all the men concerned, it is impossible to 
carry on any negotiations with a view to arriving at a settlement. 

The action of these men is not only a strike against their union, 
but is a direct challenge against all ordered government. A strike 
of any section of railway employees at this critical period, when 

1 In part, organized separately in the Locomotive Engineers and Fire- 
men. 



THE JUBILEE YEAR 21 1 

the news from all fronts is so very encouraging, can only be at- 
tended with the gravest consequences to this country and to our 
Allies. . . . 

It is gratifying that only a small section of the railwaymen have 
not accepted the settlement made by their leaders, and the thanks 
of the government and the nation are due to the railwaymen who 
are loyally abiding by the agreement to perform their duties in a 
spirit of devotion to their country's interests which has been char- 
acteristic of railwaymen during the course of the war. 

The government announced that it proposed to use the military 
and naval forces to secure the maintenance of essential service. 
The Great Western issued notice to the effect that unless men of 
military age immediately presented themselves for work, their ex- 
emption certificates would be cancelled. An interim injunction was 
secured to prevent the unions from paying strike pay; 3000 men 
of the London Rifle Brigade were dispatched in trains manned by 
Royal Engineers and were bivouacked in the streets of Newport. 
But the only clash came when a number of wounded soldiers vis- 
ited the local I. L. P. headquarters, and mistaking a knot of rail- 
waymen for the strike committee, cried "over the top" and made 
a rush for them, belaboring them with their sticks and crutches. 

The strike was fought and terminated not by these manifesta- 
tions of authority, but by the spear-head of leadership of a single 
man, who posted to Newport, spoke to the crowds, forced his way 
into the strike committee, obliged them to let him lay the whole 
case before the men and nailed various untruths that had circu- 
lated. That man was Thomas. He stood up to an hour's cross- 
questioning and his replies were cheered again and again. He gave 
out a statement to the press in which he said: 

I desire to warn any of our members who may feel inclined to 
act in sympathy with the strikers that this is a strike against the 
government as well as against the railway companies and their own 
union. It occurs at a time when the fortunes of the war seem 
brightest, and when the dawn of peace appears near. Words can- 
not express my disappointment and grief that the railwaymen are, 
by this unfortunate action, prejudicing a record of war service as 
proud as any that can be claimed by other workmen. ... I am sorry, 
but I can understand the bitterness that has been displayed by the 
wounded soldiers and the public. My task is a difficult one, but I 
shall continue to struggle here to prevent the spread of a policy 
which will be as disastrous to the men as it is fatal to the interests 
of the country. 

It was a fellow trade unionist in the government who, with the 
stoppage of traffic on the Great Western, got food through on motor 



212 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

lorries, and churns of milk to the London hospitals; a fellow mem- 
ber of the new majority who in a "message to the strikers" backed 
up Thomas in his difficult and successful task. The message from 
Clynes read: 

What workmen would have looked on as a crime in the first year 
or two of the war, is not less an offence against their reputation 
and the national interest, now that democratic principles are being 
so gallantly defended by millions of our men in the field. ... A 
few years ago railway men fought valiantly and successfully to 
get recognition for their leaders and executives. They therefore 
ought now to recognize and respect the bargain made by their 
leaders for them. Let them think not only of the credit of their 
unions, but of the appalling prospect of what our food situation 
would be if supplies are seriously checked by railway dislocation 
while the war continues. 

Thomas, the succeeding day, carried his cause to a meeting at 
Cardiff of the South Wales council of the union, a body representa- 
tive of all the branches in the district. The correspondent of the 
Manchester Guardian wrote of the "undaunted stand" and "coura- 
geous speech" of this two fisted fighting man, with his hard sayings, 
"wrestling strenuously with the judgments of both strikers and non- 
strikers." 
The London Times' report of his speech at Cardiff follows: 

Mr. Thomas, who was greeted with cries of "Good old Jim," 
said the decision to strike was conveyed by him to the government 
and he received the verdict of the War Cabinet in these words : 
"We accept the challenge of these men, not only as a challenge to 
your union and to your own authority, but as a challenge to the 
government, and not a comma of the agreement will be altered, 
even if the whole of the railwaymen of the country stop. What is 
more, let it be distinctly understood that we are going to discharge 
our functions as a government regardless of consequences." Mr. 
Thomas continued: "That is the issue you have to face. That is 
the issue I am going to face, and I tell you with all deliberation and 
sincerity that if I were Prime Minister, if I were a member of 
the War Cabinet (which I might have been), I would do precisely 
the same." (Cheers.) ". . . Are you going to strike at the backs of 
your own lads, and give encouragement to Germany? . . . You have 
forced 5,000,000 of your comrades, 100,000 of your fellow-workmen to 
hate your very name. This act has been done, let it be observed, 
by people who take no responsibility of leadership. I only desired 
to hold my position in your union so long as I had the confidence 
of the men" — ("You have it") — "but this action shows I have not. 
I am going to see this out ; then I cease to be your general secre- 
tary." ("No, no.") "I cannot go on hammering as I have for 



THE JUBILEE YEAR 213 

years, with no rest, exhausting myself physically and mentally, 
fighting your battles regardless of personal considerations, only to 
be flouted at a critical hour." 

The meeting, with only a dozen dissentients, voted to return to 
work at once; voted their confidence in Thomas. But he was not 
through. The strike ended, he submitted his resignation to the 
executive committee of the National Union of Railwaymen, on the 
ground that no other course was open to 

one who believes in constitutional government in trade unionism; 
who believes that the same standard of honor demanded from the 
other side is the least we are prepared to give ourselves. 

Moreover, whoever is responsible for the recent strike, a strike 
as wicked as it was dangerous, are people whose policy and methods 
must not only be challenged, but must te fought. Otherwise, we 
shall very soon reach a stage in this country similar to that through 
which Russia is now passing. Therefore, in taking this course, I 
do it as a challenge to such methods, and am prepared to bear all 
the consequences of my action. 

The executive committee of the N. U. R. promptly declined to 
accept his resignation, but it was only expressions of confidence 
from 90 per cent of the membership which reconciled him to retain- 
ing office. 1 His good faith as a labor leader, his constitutional 
principles as a trade unionist, his stand on the war and his belief 
with Henderson in a united "moral and political offensive" as the 
channel for working-class action to secure a democratic settle- 
ment — all were at stake, and he rang true to that conception of 
British trade unionism which had found expression in its jubilee 
congress at Derby. 

1 Following the armistice, the evacuation of France and Belgium and 
the surrender of the German fleet, the railwaymen ended the strike truce 
they had faithfully kept as a national body throughout the war, and in 
December, 1918, under Thomas' leadership, demanded and won recognition 
of the principle of the 8 hour day. 



CHAPTER XVIII 

THE RIGHT STRIKES BACK 

When James Wilson, chairman of the mission of the Amer- 
ican Federation of Labor, which visited England in the spring of 
19 18 at the expense of the British government, reached "an Atlan- 
tic port" on his return, he said in an interview with a reporter of 
the New York Tribune: — 

When I speak of labor, I mean the actual workers of Britain. 
There is, of course, a Labour Party, which is a purely political 
organization headed by Ramsay MacDonald, Arthur Henderson 
and Philip Snowden. 

He was quoted in the New York Sun: — 

There are a certain class of people who term themselves leaders 
of labor who are in reality not workingmen, but members of a labor 
political party. The mission had opportunities to speak to thousands 
of workingmen, and in all cases the policy of the American Federa- 
tion of Labor was received with cheers and practically unanimous 
approval. The purpose of the mission was to oppose the pacifist 
movement among labor abroad and to report the situation back to 
Samuel Gompers. The British workingmen are to have a new labor 
party, which will rid the ranks of the workers, of the politicians 
who now are endeavoring to exploit labor. 

Wilson then proceeded to name Henderson as one of these poli- 
ticians. 

These comments, seeking to drive a wedge into British labor 
and split it away from its majority leadership, were not only badly 
mixed and untrue; they were dangerous. Shouted across three 
thousand miles of water, like repartees over the back-fence, they 
were an aggravated continuation of the lectures against socialism 
and internationalism to which members of the American delega- 
tion treated British industrial centers like the Clyde. They gave 
a misleading account of British labor opinion, which had expressed 
itself through its two great bodies in unison. They were an attack 
on the Labour Party, as the weak and erring parasite of the indus- 
trial movement. 

214 



THE RIGHT STRIKES BACK 215 

Whereas, the Labour Party is the political expression of British 
trade unionism. They were an attack on Arthur Henderson as the 
personification of that parasitism. Whereas, Arthur Henderson rep- 
resented the Iron-founders' Society in the party conferences, and 
had a war record covering four years. 

There was, for example, a moment when the shop stewards' 
movement was riding the Clyde — that congeries of shipbuilding and 
engineering trades — like wildfire. Henderson helped Lloyd George 
in backfiring. In doing it, he incurred the enmity of David Kirk- 
wood, who, as set down in Chapter XIV, was "convener" of shop 
stewards. But he did it without throwing the entire shop stewards' 
movement to the revolutionary left. This is only one of the many 
services Henderson had rendered the nation. He could not have 
held labor together if he had swallowed government policy whole, 
with its weather-cock expediency in swinging from knock-out blows 
to the abandonment of Russia, from Irish Home Rule to Irish 
conscription. 

The visit of the American labor delegation was an incident in 
the cross currents in British politics throughout 19 18. To these 
we can turn, now that we have followed the course of the respon- 
sible labor leadership in the economic field. Just as that leader- 
ship had to reckon there with bureaucratic impingement from one 
side and sporadic upheaval from the other, so in the political field 
the new majority had to reckon with those elements which demarked 
themselves when Henderson broke with his fellow members of the 
war cabinet on Russian policy and on the issue of an inter-bellig- 
erent labor conference. 

We have seen how, at that parting of the ways, in August, 191 7, 
the government labor group represented by Barnes, Roberts, and 
Hodge gathered the skirts of denunciation about them and took 
up positions in opposition at the extreme right, while Philip Snow- 
den, chairman of the Independent Labour Party, served warning 
from the extreme left that his impatient following would go its 
own gait; how, at Nottingham in January (1918), party regularity 
and the appeal of the new "diplomacy of democracy" brought an 
overwhelming vote behind the two-edged war aims program; how 
at London in February the prospect of a labor government and the 
vision of a reconstructed England carried the new constitution with 
its compromise between constituent trade union bodies and an open 
membership; how at London in June (1918) another compromise 
left it open for labor members to remain in the Ministry while giving 
the Labour Party freedom to contest bye-elections against coali- 
tion candidates. As result, at the end of twelve months — August 
to August — the new majority, while holding the ground occupied 



2i6 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

by the labor movement as a whole since 19 14 in support of the 
war as a defensive one against Prussian militarism, had more and 
more dissociated itself from the Lloyd George coalition government 
in both foreign policy and domestic politics. 

The swing to the left had swept in the great trade union forma- 
tion and the cooperative societies as well as the political movement, 
and the swing was unmistakably toward a peace unexploited by 
imperialism, toward a collectivism tempered by liberty. 

For very opposite reasons, phases of this development had been 
irritating to both extremes. 

THE I. L. P. AS A FREE LANCE 

The swing was slow and step by step, while uncounted men 
went down in battle; also it created a new orthodoxy. The Inde- 
pendent Labour Party tugged at the leashes. 

At its 26th annual conference at Leicester, at the end of March, 
1918, the I. L. P. recorded the establishment of 153 new branches 
and a total gain of 50 per cent in membership (much of it the 
result of the last six months' work) . It passed a so-called soldiers' 
charter, expressing its lively concern for the "decent treatment of 
the men who receive not much more than lip service from the pro- 
fessing patriots." This charter called for substantial increases in 
pay, separation allowances and pensions which "should be based 
on rates of civil wages and should respond to the great rise in the 
cost of living;" — for standard wages for discharged men regardless 
of their pensions; — for generous provision for the industrial train- 
ing of the children of deceased soldiers; — for the fullest "possible 
measure of civil and political liberty" for soldiers and sailors; — 
for the abolition of the death penalty in the army, for means for 
legal defense at military trials and for representation of privates 
in courts martial; — for the adequate representation of self-govern- 
ing associations of private soldiers on all committees dealing with 
the administration of war pensions and similar matters, etc. 

In moving the charter, Ramsay MacDonald said: — ■. 

It must be taken as an indication of intention. It means funda- 
mentally to say that the soldier is a man. When he is called up 
by the state he retains his human rights and his civic rights. 

The conference passed radical resolutions on peace and civil 
liberties. The peace resolution was moved by Robert Smillie. The 
following report of his speech is taken from the I. L. P. press: — 

Mr. Smillie was given a long and hearty welcome. He said sev- 
eral of his old comrades in the movement had told him he was 



THE RIGHT STRIKES BACK 217 

looking amazingly well. He was not nearly so well looking when 
they met him at the Labour Party conference or at the Trades Union 
Congress. "How can any one look well at the Labour Party con- 
ference or the Trades Union Congress ?" he asked, and the delegates 
laughed and applauded. 

"Attending the I. L. P. conference is like getting a breath of 
the sea," he continued, "swallowing the ozone. It gets into your 
lungs, into your blood, into your mind. I think if I could attend 
every year I would live for ever." 

The soul of the conference, he thought, was in two or three of 
the resolutions, the resolution moved by Comrade MacDonald and 
the two on Peace and Liberty that were before them. Peace with- 
out liberty was not good enough. They must endeavor to secure 
peace, but while securing it they ought to protect the little liberty 
they had. 

"Simmons has been sentenced to prison, and one of the clauses 
under which he was charged was: 'Any person who attempts to 
cause disaffection among the civilian population,' and so on. Why, 
good heavens, what is this conference trying to do this morning? 
(Loud applause.) What are you here for? I have been causing 
disaffection for nearly 40 years, and I have never found anything 
— or hardly anything — in life to be satisfied with. This is Easter 
time. Some twenty centuries ago there was a cross erected, and 
evidently the Defence of the Realm Act was enforced in that coun- 
try. Evidently Jesus of Nazareth was going about causing disaffec- 
tion among the civilian population. 

"The Churches keep his Crucifixion as a holiday, but they have 
forgotten his teaching." 

Referring to the Prime Minister's flippant talk of the last man, 
Mr. Smillie drew a picture of the last Tommy and the last Fritz: — 

They are unshaven and ragged. They still carry their bit of 
wood and steel with them. But they have no inclination to fight. 
They have an inclination to talk. The shades of the Kaiser and 
our Prime Minister hiss at them to go on and get it finished. Fritz 
says: "Hullo, Tommy, are we to finish it?" "Yes," says Tommy. 
"But what is it all about?" "I don't know, but we have got to 
finish it." Fritz says: "But can't we finish it by negotiation and 
argument?" Tommy replies: "If we had a penny we could toss up 
for it." They have a cigarette together before they finish it. They 
are both mortally wounded. The guns are thrown away, and they 
clasp hands in their death agony. Fritz says: "I am going, Tommy, 
but what was it all about?" "I don't know," Tommy answers. 

"That sounds frivolous," said Mr. Smillie, "I have no idea of 
being frivolous. We are all feeling too deeply for that. It is not 
more frivolous than the damnable talk about the last man." 

Recall the situation at the turn of the spring, following the 
military deadlock of the winter months. The German high com- 
mand had brought its eastern armies to the West, and had set 



2i8 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

out, before American forces could be brought overseas en masse, 
to smash through to Paris or the Channel and end the war with 
a military decision in its favor. 

This was the same sort of solution that had been held up, 
spring after spring, by one side or the other. The members of 
the I. L. P., no less than their fellows, were against giving in to 
a German military decision. That should be kept clear. They 
stood in silence to do honor to the men who had gone down in the 
battle, then on. But with the unified Allied command still to 
demonstrate itself and with military experts skeptical that the 
trans-shipment of American troops would do more than restore the 
equilibrium destroyed by the cave-in of the great Russian armies, 
they envisaged as humanly disastrous any indefinite prolongation 
of the struggle to reach an Allied military decision. They believed 
a just settlement could have been secured by negotiation earlier in 
the war, and they believed it could be so secured again. 

They were poor military prophets as the fall months proved, 
— poor comforters to a sorely put government which had bungled 
with the diplomatic weapon, — poor help to an army fighting 
with its back to the wall; but they were consistent apostles of the 
faith that was in them, regardless of the military map and reckless 
of the condemnation of the great majority of British organs of 
opinion. 

In the face of the German drive they stuck to a solution dia- 
metrically opposed to the principle that animated it — stuck to a 
peace without victory, brought about by popular recoil in all na- 
tions against the gruelling prospect of a peace by exhaustion. They 
urged it as a recourse inimical to imperialistic ambition but as a 
recourse consonant with democratic aims. 

Their resolution read: — 

This conference of the I. L. P. strongly reaffirms that a demo- 
cratic and unaggressive peace secured by negotiation at the earliest 
possible moment, alone can save the nations from mutual destruc- 
tion, ruin, and bankruptcy, and urges in the interests of civiliza- 
tion that no opportunity be lost of examining honestly the possibil- 
ities of world settlement; the conference sends greetings to the men 
and women in all countries who are working for a peoples' peace 
without annexations or indemnities, and with the rights of peoples, 
large or small, to determine their own life, and assures such men 
and women that the forces of reason are rapidly gathering strength 
among the British workers; and this conference denounces and 
repudiates the secret treaties to which governments and rulers have 
committed themselves behind the backs of their peoples, and insists 
that such treaties, involving imperialist conquest and territorial ag- 
gression, are the real stumbling blocks to an early and lasting peace, 



THE RIGHT STRIKES BACK 219 

and must be swept away with all governments that are bound by 
them. 

Obviously the I. L. P. was prepared, in pressing this course 
at such a time, to continue its past record by taking positions on 
procedure radically to the left of those taken by the main body of 
organized labor. 

Nor was the turn events had taken in line with its earlier 
pneering in international and political affairs wholly to the liking 
of he I. L. P. executive. And with some cause. 

For the labor movement to absorb the ferment the I. L. P. had 
enmdered when the great organizations were quiescent to the 
issss now engaging them, was one thing. To discard the cake of 
yeat that had been the active principle of that ferment, was to 
destry its power for leaven in the future. From an organization 
stanpoint the net result of the expansion of the Labour Party to 
inchle workers a by hand or by brain" was to spread local labor 
parens, catering in competition with the I. L. P. branches to indi- 
vid^l members. The net result of the joint British offensive was 
to exlude the I. L. P. as such from the Inter-Allied Conference. 
[Ch^ter VII.] True, the I. L. P. had itself stood for a policy of 
rfxiusion. From the beginning of the war, it had sought to obtain 
a meeting of the International Socialist Bureau, and it opposed the 
proposal of the Labour Party to invite to the Inter-Allied Confer- 
ence, the American Federation of Labor, which it described as a 
"non-political body ineligible for affiliation" to the bureau. Later 
on the A. F. of L., from the opposite angle, similarly attempted to 
shunt the Labour Party (with its joint socialist and labor member- 
ship), from achieving a united front among the dominant labor 
and socialist formations among the Allies. The A. F. of L. wanted 
to keep clear of the socialists; the I. L. P., of the purely trade 
union bodies. 

Analyzing the report made by the administrative council of the 
I. L. P. to the Leicester convention, the correspondent of the Chris- 
tian Commonwealth wrote: — 

Much the same argument (as to the A. F. of L.) applies to 
the Trades Union Congress, which) in conjunction with the Labour 
Party, shared responsibility for the convocation of the recent inter- 
Allied conference, and is cooperating in the effort to convene a 
general international congress. The I. L. P. protests vigorously 
against the assumption of authority by the joint committee of the 
Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party, which has acted 
(according to the report) "as the sole representative of labor and 
socialism in this country" in the effort to secure first national, then 
inter-Allied, and, finally, international agreement on war aims. . . . 



220 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

Of what, then, do the socialists complain? Here is positive achieve- 
ment — an international working-class policy carried through two 
stages and within sight of the third. The root of the socialist 
objection is that all this has been done not in the name of the Social- 
ist International, but in the name of the organized working-class 
movement. The independence of the Independent Labour Party, in 
other words, has been ignored; the socialist organizations have 
been treated as part of the working-class movement. . . . 

And I suppose it would continue its protest even if it were prccd 
that the policy it advocated not only in international affairs.out 
in relation to the problems of social reconstruction, is essentiall the 
policy that has been adopted by the larger organization in Mich 
it is a unit. 

In a word, the I. L. P. is not prepared to play the part of a olit- 
ical John the Baptist. It is not prepared to see the Labour arty 
as the organ of political democracy in this country increase. ^hile 
the I. L. P. itself diminishes. The determination to remain* sep- 
arate independent party, willing indeed to work with the labour 
Party to increase labor representation in Parliament, but unv.fling 
to merge its forces in the general movement of organized *bor 
towards the conquest of political power — a movement to whicbthe 
Trades Union Congress now powerfully contributes — is written arge 
on every page of the report. 

As viewed by this correspondent, "the quarrel between the 
I. L. P. and the politically organized working-class movement" was 
for the former, "literally a fight for existence." He went on: — 

Mr. Snowden's address from the chair of the conference on 
Monday was chiefly notable for his extraordinary declaration against 
a labor government, and his approval of a Lansdowne government. 
He said that the failure of the Labour Party during the war had 
made a labor government neither possible nor desirable. Whatever 
might be the personnel of the next government it would only be 
a government pledged to explore every avenue that might lead to 
peace. This is the Lansdowne formula, and Mr. Snowden added that 
personally he would not hesitate to support any government set up 
for that specific purpose, even if at its head there was a statesman 
of aristocratic and Tory tradition. Thus Mr. Snowden is not a 
supporter of the policy of working-class action formulated by the 
labor and socialist parties in the Allied countries. He was reelected 
as chairman of the I. L. P. 

THE LABOR MEMBERS OF THE COALITION 

This separatist movement of the extreme left, headed by Snow- 
den, and due in part to its failure to control the main current of 
the labor movement, was more than matched by a separatist move- 
ment of the extreme right, due in part to an identical reason. And 



THE RIGHT STRIKES BACK 221 

the two unquestionably aggravated each other to fresh efforts at 
reprisal and control. 

Barred out as a constituent organization from the Inter-Allied 
Conference and no longer secure as such even of a seat in the 
Labour Party executive, the energies of the I. L. P. were deflected 
to the constituencies where it cheerfully locked horns with the 
government labor following; with what result was registered at the 
June (19 1 8) conference of the Labour Party. That conference was 
the first delegate assembly of the party since the February meeting at 
which it discarded its old form of a loose federation of trade unions, 
small socialist societies and scattered local organizations. The sig- 
nificance in labor politics of this change and the developments of 
the intervening months from February to June were thus sum- 
marized from a point of view unsympathetic to the I. L. P. by the 
labor correspondent of the London Times (June 25): — 

Broadly, it may be said that, while the socialist societies (par- 
ticularly the Independent Labour Party), working through the local 
organizations, supplied much of the driving power of the movement ; 
the trade unions, which provided the greater part of its funds and 
membership, controlled its general policy through the party confer- 
ences. From time to time when the Independent Labour Party tried 
unduly to force the pace, the trade unions resisted, and relations 
were strained. But the Independent Labour Party continued to 
swallow its annoyance at defeats in conferences and to pursue its 
policy of penetration in the constituencies, and the Labour Party 
remained a heterogeneous confederation of discordant bodies. 

The scheme of reorganization accepted last February was a step 
towards the creation of a homogeneous national democratic party 
which should derive its solid support as well as its driving power 
from branches or parties in all the parliamentary, constituencies. . . . 
The I. L. P. would wish to see the process hastened, and it is 
doing its utmost to capture the outer organizations to compensate for 
its reverses in the central organization. That is how it comes about 
that labor members of the government who enjoy the confidence 
of the main body of trade unionists are finding themselves repudiated 
in their constituencies, and labor candidates are being put forward 
against government candidates in defiance of the party executive. 
It is to escape from the anomalous position in which the executive 
are thus placed that they recommend the formal breaking of the 
political truce. . . . 

Just before the June conference, the labor members of the gov- 
ernment united in a protest against breaking the truce and against 
"sniping." The debate in which Henderson, as against both Barnes 
(on the government right) and Smillie (as spokesman for the left) 
but with the acquiescence of Clynes, carried the day for a working 



222 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

compromise, has been brought out in Chapter XII. While the 
truce was broken in such a way as to keep the labor members in 
the Ministry as such, they received small comfort against sniping 
in the constituencies. The difficulties of their position and their 
services to the nation were portrayed sympathetically by the Times' 
labor correspondent. He wrote (June 28): — 

No one whose lot it has been to come in contact with them can 
fail to appreciate the way in which, to the benefit of the state, old 
conventions have been jettisoned, departmental minuting scrapped, 
and official attention immediately directed to the root of the affair 
in hand. In one particular respect they have revolutionized depart- 
mental practice. They have made themselves personally accessible 
to all who have suggestions to make or complaints to lay. 

Unfortunately the labor world knows little of the inner doings 
of Whitehall. What it comes into direct contact with, and knows 
intimately, is the labor administration of the different departments 
representative of government. There it finds in some matters 
regarded by labor as of highest moment to the movement variant, and 
in many cases contrary, principles in operation. The responsibility 
is generally most undeservedly laid by labor at the doors of the 
representative of government. . . . 

For instance, the recent government scheme for mobile labor is 
not, it is understood, to apply to shipyards. Thus a boilermaker 
or an engineer comes under a different regime and conditions, ac- 
cording as he is working in a Ministry of Munitions or an Ad- 
miralty firm. The trouble this breeds is obvious. In connection 
with disputes, the divergence of practice as between the Ministry 
of Munitions and the Admiralty is still more profound. 

. . . The existence of such a state of things impairs more than 
can be imagined by those not in touch with industrial sentiment the 
status, with the authority over labor, of the labor members of the 
government. The latter entered the government as labor representa- 
tives in support of such uniform national labor policy as would win 
the war; and it is the duty of the government, as far as possible, to 
vindicate that position. 

This was, of course, not the whole story, as shown by the reso- 
lutions offered at Nottingham (Chapter XII), demanding that the 
labor members of the government "come out." Not only had they 
to carry a vicarious load of responsibility for what were regarded 
as the anti-union policies of other administrative departments, but 
in common with most of the other older officials of the national 
unions, they were associated with that war-time waiving of the right 
to strike, of trade union regulations and of bargaining machinery 
which growing numbers of workers felt had stripped labor of its 
old protections and left it bare to war-time abuses. In the vernac- 



THE RIGHT STRIKES BACK 223 

ular of the trade union hall, labor felt it had two fights on its 
hands, one against Prussian autocracy and one against industrial 
autocracy and profiteering at home. The resulting insurgency 
against the old leadership was brought out in Chapter XIV on the 
shop stewards movement. In accepting lucrative government posts, 
labor officials were attacked as at best acting as buffers. The fact 
that Thomas had refused Cabinet posts, that Smillie had done like- 
wise and successfully stood out against any impairment of the 
right to strike in the mines, lent point to these feelings. 

Now beyond that, by being in the government, the labor mem- 
bers were inevitably associated in the common mind with the for- 
eign policies with which the majority labor movement had broken 
— with the mishandling of the Russian Revolution, the tardiness to 
come out into the open with peace terms, the secret treaties, the 
refusal of passports and the like. And beyond that, unlike Barnes 
(who subscribed # to the league of nations and the war aims memo- 
randum), certain of them were spokesmen for bitter assaults upon 
the new democratic front of labor in foreign policy which engaged 
the rank and file ; unlike Clynes, they were antagonistic to the whole 
procedure by which it sought to make its weight count. Their posi- 
tion was linked up with that of Milner, Carson, Balfour, Curzon. 

Beyond that again, we must remember that throughout these 
months, a general election was in the offing; and the Labour 
Party's proposals for an unimperialistic peace and its plan for 
domestic reconstruction were more than academic or propaganda 
pronouncements. They were the platform of a political party which 
offered itself to the electorate as an alternative to the government 
in power. This was as little to the liking of those labor leaders of 
the extreme right, who had cast in their lot with Lloyd George, as 
it was to Snowden at the extreme left, who proposed to cast in his 
with Lansdowne on the war issue. It was common talk that the 
premier would try to split both labor and liberal camps and create a 
new party of his own. 

HARBINGERS OF ECONOMIC WAR 

But beyond all these questions of industrial relations, demo- 
cratic affiliations and party tactics, the ribs of great economic inter- 
ests showed through the body politic of Great Britain. The old 
fissures in public opinion between the free traders and the tariff 
reformers (protectionists) were gaping wider than ever; the old 
habit of aligning men by trade-interests, vertically, industry by 
industry, nation by nation, rather than by social classes at home 
coupled with fellowship abroad, was given tremendous sanction by 



224 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

race enmities bred of the war. The Labour Party had sensed this 
in its presentment Labour and the New Social Order, and driven 
straight at it in such passages as the following on the Britannic 
Alliance: — 

We desire to maintain the most intimate relations with the Labour 
Parties overseas. Like them, we have no sympathy with the proj- 
ects of "Imperial Federation," in so far as these imply the subjec- 
tion to a common Imperial Legislature wielding coercive power (in- 
cluding dangerous facilities for coercive imperial taxation and for 
enforced military service), either of the existing self-governing 
dominions, whose autonomy would be thereby invaded; or of the 
United Kingdom, whose freedom of democratic self-development 
would be thereby hampered; or of India and the Colonial Dependen- 
cies, which would thereby run the risk of being further exploited for 
the benefit of a "White Empire." We do not intend, by any such 
"Imperial Senate," either to bring the plutocracy of Canada and 
South Africa to the aid of the British aristocracy, or to enable the 
landlords and financiers of the Mother Country to unite in con- 
trolling the growing popular democracir 3 overseas. The absolute 
autonomy of each self-governing part of the empire must be main- 
tained intact. 

And this on the League of Nations: — 

As regards our relations to foreign countries, we disavow and 
disclaim any desire or intention to dispossess or to impoverish any 
other state or nation. We seek no increase of territory. We dis- 
claim all idea of "economic war." We ourselves object to all pro- 
tective customs tariffs; but we hold that each nation must be left 
free to do what it thinks best for its own economic development, 
without thought of injuring others. We believe that nations are in 
no way damaged by each other's economic prosperity or commer- 
cial progress but, on the contrary, that they are actually themselves 
mutually enriched thereby. We would therefore put an end to the 
old entanglements and mystifications of secret diplomacy and the 
formation of leagues against leagues. 

It would be entirely beside the mark to discount the concern 
felt by some British labor men at the proposal of an inter-belliger- 
ent labor conference, which they honestly regarded as playing into 
the hands of the enemy; just as it would be entirely beside the 
mark to discount the outraged feelings of individual members of 
ships' crews, who refused to transport labor delegates. But it would 
be equally beside the mark to ignore the fact that the three-decker 
tariff proposed by the industrial preferentialists and the form of 
punishment for German naval crimes advocated by the Sailors' 
Union (a five-year boycott), played into the hands of interests 



THE RIGHT STRIKES BACK 225 

which would profit most by a commercial imperialism kindred, to 
the minds of the workers, in its economic if not in its political con- 
cepts, to the Prussianism they were fighting, and calculated to per- 
petuate the causes of race friction and war. 

The new majority was conscious that its position might be com- 
promised and its effective opposition routed by such interests strik- 
ing through the labor leaders of the extreme right (the government 
group) at those of the extreme left. 

Thus, we find John Hodge, Minister of Pensions, addressing a 
meeting at Hanley in mid-April of the North Staffordshire Branches 
of the Iron and Steel Trade Confederation. After a reference to 
the Labour Party, Hodge continued: 

That is to say, if there be a Labour Party. I have my doubts. 
If you read the debates in the House of Commons last week you 
could not come to the conclusion that there was a Labour Party. 
One section was in one lobby and the other section in the other. 
One section of the Labour Party talk about "their friends in Ger- 
many." . . . Then they say that men like myself, who talk about 
not giving an open door to the Germans after the war, are seeking 
to perpetuate an economic war. We do not want to do anything 
of the kind, but what we ask is how, after the brutalities of the 
Germans towards our peaceful fishermen and our mercantile marine, 
after the dastardly acts with regard to the Lusitania and the Belgian 
Prince, after the brutal murder of Captain Fryatt, can we permit 
them to come into this country with their goods after the war as 
they did before it? 

Then, looking at it from another point of view, I am not willing, 
as a steel worker, and you are not willing as iron and steel workers, 
to have furnaces idle in this country while German steel is being 
dumped into it. (Cheers.) There must be none of that. Not 
until every furnace is working and we cannot supply our own needs 
should we buy from other people. . . . 

He was proud of the magnificent services that the iron and steel 
trades had rendered during the war. They had had no strikes or 
lockouts: 

We iron and steel workers intend to play our part in reconstruc- 
tion. After the war, strikes and lockouts will be catastrophes to 
all concerned. Reason must take the place of all other methods of 
settlement. I am wondering also whether, in our own interest as 
a confederation, the time has not come when we ought to move 
towards a trade union party instead of that mongrel, nondescript 
kind of thing that we have to-day. You cannot blend oil and water, 
and you cannot blend good, sound, honest trade unionists with the 
professed friends of Germany who are inside the party. 



226 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

Thus, we find G. H. Roberts, Minister of Labour, before the 
Association of Trade Protection Societies in April, condemning 
"sniping" and those who "were continually advocating the policy 
of civil war within their own shores"; find him before the Eccentric 
Club, in response to the toast, "The Ministers of the Crown," de- 
nouncing the war aims memorandum of British and Allied labor: 

So-called manifestoes were being issued without the concurrence 
of the labor movement and without the rank and file of that move- 
ment being consulted. He was a democrat, and he denied the right 
of any clique to speak in the name of the labor movement with 
which he was connected unless all the various elements of that 
movement were being consulted and a ballot taken which could give 
a proper decision. We were told by some people that after the war 
we should help enemy nations to recover as rapidly as we did our- 
selves. He was sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that sin ought 
to be punished, and that wrong ought to be expiated. The Central 
Empires were alone responsible for the precipitation of this hor- 
rible catastrophe, and they ought not to be allowed to emerge from 
this terrible struggle without paying the full penalty. He knew that 
what he was saying might involve him in a parting of the ways, but 
he was a British citizen before he was a politician, and if and when 
he was compelled to choose between his conception of British citi- 
zenship and his association with any political party he would say 
to the party — "Go hang! I am proud to be a British citizen." 
(Cheers.) 

It had been suggested that we ought to help the enemy to recover 
quicker than our own nation, but he could not subscribe to any such 
theory. His view was "My own country first, and the British Em- 
pire in association therewith; the Allies next." We must arrange 
with ourselves and our Allies before we had any regard to the 
others. . . . 

G. N. Barnes, Henderson's successor in the War Cabinet, who 
also responded to the toast, said he might content himself in saying 
"ditto" to Roberts. 

Thus, we find the Australian labor premier, Hughes, in an attack 
more self -revealing than those of his British colleagues, in that it 
was directed unmistakably at the new majority, and frankly waved 
the bloody shirt from a flagstaff of commercial monopoly. In ad-' 
dressing a mass meeting of workers at Cardiff, over which Com- 
mander Sir Edward Nichol presided, he was quoted by the London 
Times (July 22) as saying: — 

The loud voice of the pacifist was heard in the land; and by 
pacifist he meant every man, whether he was a German, a traitor, 
or merely a visionary or a fool, who sought to divert the nation 



- THE RIGHT STRIKES BACK 227 

from the path it had sworn to follow, and deprive it of the fruits 
of victory — that lasting peace which it had sworn to achieve. But 
the pacifist made more noise than his numbers warranted. . . . 

It was impossible for the workers of this or any other country 
to improve their working conditions unless sound economic condi- 
tions existed. And this could only be done by securing the home 
market and controlling the sources from which the raw material 
came. . . . 

"Amongst those who are opposed to a sound economic policy are 
the pacifists," proceeded Mr. Hughes. "I am not surprised. A 
sound economic policy for Britain means material loss to Germany, 
and the pacifists seem to have a tender regard for her interests. 
'The Paris Economic Conference resolutions,' said Mr. Henderson, 
'must be strenuously opposed.' That is exactly what Germany said 
to Russia at the point of the sword. That was how Germany ex- 
pressed the triumph of Prussianism. And Mr. Henderson says 
exactly the same thing. He goes on: — 'British labor desires to 
maintain the policy of the open door.' And Germany also desires 
us to maintain the policy of the open door. Emil Zimmerman says: 
— 'The rise of Germany is due essentially to the British policy of 
the open door. Without that we should be at one stroke once more 
the Germany of 1870.' It is certainly curious, to say the least of 
it, that while England and Germany are locked in a life-and-death 
struggle an Englishman should agree with a German that the policy 
vital to the welfare of Germany should be maintained by Britain. 
. . . They seem to have forgotten facts that have burned them- 
selves into our very hearts. Have they forgotten the murder of 
unarmed crews and passengers — men, women, and children sent 
without warning to their graves? Have they forgotten that hos- 
pital ships were sunk and lifeboats shelled? Do they not remember 
how hospitals were bombed? Have they forgotten how workers 
were deported from Belgium and forced to work for a miserable 
pittance? . . . 

"There are those leaders of labor who, although they promise 
the workers that they will lead them into the promised land, seem 
by their attitude towards the war and after-the-war problems to 
think that labor can grow fat on a diet of wind and platitudes about 
internationalism. They are dealers in words rather than in deeds — ■ 
men with their heads in the clouds and their feet in a bog. Labor 
has done gloriously in this war; it has proved its patriotism by 
deeds ; it has fought heroically ; the battlefields are red with its blood ; 
it has endured and suffered much. Yet its courage has never flagged, 
its resolution never faltered. On sea and land, labor has won for 
itself a sure place in the heart of the nation." 

"The welfare of labor and capital," concluded Mr. Hughes, 
"alike absolutely depend upon an abundant supply of raw materials 
for British industries and food. When the war was over there 
would be a fierce struggle for raw materials. Germany, under the 
Brest-Litovsk Treaty, had compelled Russia to supply her with 



228 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

what she wanted, and in turn had forced her, at the point of the 
bayonet, to receive German manufactures. Mr. Henderson wanted 
us to continue this policy. He said it was a good one, and that it 
would be very wrong to adopt the same policy as Germany herself 
did. But what did the people of Britain say? He was sick of this 
canting humbug about internationalism. Nationalism, not interna- 
tionalism, was the policy for Britain. We welcomed the civilized 
nations of the earth, and our dearest hope was that a firm and 
enduring alliance would be made between America, France and 
Britain. But until Germany purged herself of her iniquities, until 
her power to harm was crushed, we would not treat her as one of 
the family of nations, but as a pariah. . . ." 

This same column in the Times reported briefly an address by 
Arthur Henderson the same day before a labor conference at Old- 
ham in which he 

pleaded for a real League of Nations, composed of all belligerents 
and neutrals. He said they wanted to create an international mind 
for referring disputes to boards of conciliation and arbitration. 
How could they talk of a family of nations and at the same time 
about five or ten years of revenge? Mere victory on the one side 
or the other would not give a settlement that was going to make the 
future secure for progressive democracy. 

Those who said that the Labour Party desired a German settle- 
ment told a lie. He had supported the war from the beginning, 
and had made sacrifices. Future security lay in securing a world's 
peace in the interest of humanity. ... 

POINTS OF ATTACK UPON THE NEW MAJORITY 

We have now before us some of the motivations at work on 
and in the extreme right of the British labor movement. 

Like much else in human affairs, they were complex, ranging 
from an elementary exasperation at anything which distracted men's 
minds from the immediate business of "carrying on," to various 
pitches of self-interest and mistrust. These were mixed up with 
resurgent longings for Anglo-Saxon dominance abroad, and for a 
return to the status quo ante of the social structure at home. 

If we are to assume that these motivations were consciously 
gathered up and directed at the overthrow of the united front of 
British and Allied labor, built up by the new majority, the points 
of attack which offered best chances for success were fairly clear. 
These would have been to isolate the British movement from its 
natural fellowship in American labor; to establish instead relation- 
ships with the latter through some "safe" trade union agency; to 
attempt to use the Americans to flatten out the recalcitrants at 



THE RIGHT STRIKES BACK 229 

home; to effect a swing to the right in the Labour Party itself, 
and, failing that, to counter it with a rival political movement on 
purely trade union lines; to break away the great Trades Union 
Congress from its alliance with the Labour Party on war aims, and 
to use the British union most out of touch with labor in the indus- 
trial centers (the sailors) and most intimately stirred by German 
atrocities, to discredit as pro-German the whole labor offensive, 
internally and externally, bag and baggage; engendering a popular 
sentiment that would lend itself to a very different world outlook 
and a very different home policy. Now this is mere assumption. It 
is to be presumed that these various moves were instigated in dif- 
ferent quarters, and for the various motivations which have been 
set down. But it is clear that they all came to a head in the Derby 
Conference of the Trade Union Congress in September, 19 18. It 
is altogether clear that with Pan-Germanism playing by its every 
excess into the hands of the opponents of the British labor major- 
ity, with the power of the British government exercised to pre- 
vent a free interplay between British and American labor, with 
handicaps thrown in the way of Allied labor — both by home and 
Prussian governments — in getting its war aims through to the 
German workers, with the sailors and the submarine issue to goad 
the righteous wrath of British men, with a great military victory 
reported in the midst of the Congress and rousing it to cheers and 
congratulatory cables, with Hughes and Gompers on the ground 
standing for a contrary labor leadership, they had their best chance 
for success. And it is clear most of all that they did not succeed. 
They failed utterly. The new majority held. The British work- 
ers continued, to "get on with the war," but they continued with 
their master distinction between the German workers and that 
German government which, in pre-war days, had thwarted so suc- 
cessfully efforts toward political and industrial freedom and might 
be supposed not to have loosened its grip in wartime. They de- 
termined to go on with their international procedure, like tapping 
at the walls of entombed miners. They stood their ground on free 
trade, and they disposed of the separatist movements on the ex- 
treme right in the ways which were set down in the last chapter. 
The American context of these things will appear in the chapters 
succeeding. 



CHAPTER XIX 

AMERICAN LABOR OUT OF IT 

The American Federation of Labor believes in open diplomacy, 
as witness the publication in the American Federationist of its in- 
ternational correspondence. Or, more correctly, an open season, 
for it publishes this in occasional batches. The issue for Novem- 
ber, 191 7, contained, for example, the exchanges prior to America's 
entry into the war — Gompers' cable of February 4, 191 7, to Carl 
Legien, secretary of the General Commission of German Trade 
Unions, asking him if he could not 

prevail upon the German government to avoid a break with the 
United States and thereby prevent universal conflict; 

Legien's answer of February 11, in which he cited Germany's offer 
of peace negotiations and "the enemy's frankly avowed aims at 
destruction of Germany," claimed that no labor intervention on 
his part had chance of success "unless America prevails upon Eng- 
land to discontinue starvation war," and appealed to American 
labor 

not to allow themselves to be catspaws of war-mongers by sailing 
war zone and thus contribute extending conflict; 

together with Gompers' final warning of April 2: — 

. . . We are all doing our level best to avert actual war and we 
have the right to insist that the men of labor of Germany exert their 
last ounce of effort to get your government to make an immediate 
and satisfactory avowal that shall save all from America's entrance 
into the universal conflict. 

But, more pertinently to the matters in hand, the issues of the 
American Federationist afford a fresh background to the incidents 
of 19 1 8, in their documentation of the exchanges which had been 
going forward for three years looking to a resumption of interna- 
tional relations between distinctly trade union bodies, exchanges 
which at times paralleled the Socialist efforts centering around 
Stockholm. 

Before the war (Chapter III), the International Federation of 
Trades Unions (I. F. T. U.) (Internationaler Gewerkschaftsbund — 
I. G. B.) included the French Confederation Generate du Travail, 

230 



AMERICAN LABOR OUT OF IT 231 

the American Federation of Labor, the General Commission of 
German Trade Unions, the General Federation of Trade Unions 
(Great Britain), and, in general, the other distinctly trade union 
bodies throughout Europe. [The British Trades Union Congress, 
however, held aloof.] Its president was Carl Legien and its offices 
were in Berlin. It was entirely distinct from the Socialist "Inter- 
national" which more cautiously had headquarters, chairman and 
secretary in neutral Belgium. 

In 19 14, the Philadelphia convention of the American Federation 
of Labor proposed an international labor conference to sit con- 
currently with the Peace congress. Favorable replies came from 
French, Australian and South African organizations; "from Germany 
came an opinion that such a plan was impracticable." 

In 191 5, the San Francisco convention reaffirmed this proposal. 
Its rejection by the British Trades Union Congress (in spite of 
a favorable report by its parliamentary committee) was recounted 
in the earlier chapter. This was at Birmingham before the "swing 
toward the left." The General Federation of Trade Unions of 
Great Britain also rejected it at the time, and thereafter stayed put 
on the extreme right. 

In 19 1 6, the Baltimore convention put forward the further 
suggestion that "all international labor organizations urge upon 
their national governments the justice of including in their national 
delegation to the World Peace Congress, when it is held, repre- 
sentatives of the workers of their country." The American Federa- 
tionist of January, 19 17, brought out correspondence with W. A. 
Appleton, secretary of the General Federation of Trades Unions 
of Great Britain, enthusiastically endorsing this suggestion; but it 
was not for 10 months, or until the December following, that the 
reply sent January 30, 191 7, by Jouhaux of the general confederation 
of French workers was brought out, regretting that the American 
federation had "abandoned your first proposition which had been 
accepted by it and gave it much satisfaction." The French con- 
federation endeavored to reopen this earlier proposal, asking 
Gompers to submit to his organization a proposal for an exchange 
of views preceding the peace congress to "enable the delegates to 
place themselves in accord upon the general principles they will de- 
fend." 

Thus, in 191 7, a proposal for an interbelligerent labor confer- 
ence came to the American Federation two months before Amer- 
ica's entry into the war, from an Allied, as distinct from a German, 
quarter, trade union as distinct from socialist, French as distinct 
from British. 

No reply by the American body was published in the Federation- 



232 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

ist, but on March 28, 191 7, a circular letter was sent out by The 
Schweizer Gewerkschaftsbund — Union Suisse Des Federations Syn- 
dicates — in "compliance with a wish of our French comrades." They 
addressed the "National Centers of Trade Unions" of America, Eng- 
land, France, Italy, Spain and Belgium, proposing an international 
meeting at Berne. 1 In moving as neutrals, Swiss labor suggested a 
conference to discuss proposals put out by a conference of Allied 
labor held at Leeds in July, 1916; to decide on the domicile of the 
I. G. B., and on the continuation of the International Trade Union 
Correspondence. From personal information, wrote the Swiss sec- 
retary, they knew that Italian, Spanish, Austrian, Hungarian, Dutch, 
Danish, Norwegian and Scandinavian trade union bodies would fol- 
low their initiative, and the meeting therefore "would depend on the 
consent of America, England and France." With respect to an 
English delegation, they thought "it most advisable to invite not 
only the General Federation of Trade Unions, but also the Trades 
Union Congress, i. e., its Parliamentary Committee, representing, as 
it does, the greater part of the English trade union movement," — a 
significant paragraph in the light of developments. The British 
General Federation declined to attend; but the French confederal 
committee decided June 4 in favor of the conference (set for Septem- 
ber 17, 191 7) and proposed a prior meeting, also at Berne, of the cen- 
tral organizations of the Entente countries. Appleton cabled Gompers 
on July 2 that the British General Federation was still opposed 2 and 
asked the Americans to await a written report of its delegates 

1 They recited: 

— That "the attempts made by some representatives of the Entente 
through the intervention of America in the year 1915 to revive the Inter- 
national Federation of Trade Unions by removing its headquarters to a 
neutral country had been without result"; 

— That a "later proposition of America to hold an international trade 
union conference for the pronouncement of the workers' demands at the 
same time and place as the general peace congress" . . . "was not found 
expedient either by the trade unions of the countries of the Entente, of 
the Central Powers, or by those of the neutral countries" as "such a 
proposal could only have a practical result if it were possible to work out 
a joint program preliminary to the international conference"; 

— That a first step in this direction was made by conference of allied 
labor at Leeds in July, 1916, which worked out a "regular peace pro- 
gram," thereafter submitted to all national centers ; and decided to 
establish a bureau of correspondence at Paris; and 

— That the subsequent effort of Legien, as president of the I. G. B., 
himself to call a conference at Berne in December, 1916, was abandoned, 
as it was "very doubtful whether the trades unions of the countries of 
the Entente would follow the invitation." 

2 This report recounted that : 

"The Americans more than a year ago suggested international confer- 
ences of workers to determine the conditions of peace. The General Fed- 



AMERICAN LABOR OUT OF IT 233 

(James O 'Grady, Alfred Short, W. A. Appleton) just returned 
from Paris. This report was a characteristic diagnosis of the 
temper of French labor from the point of view of the extreme Brit- 
ish right. It ascribed the action of the French confederation to 
"war weariness," "loss of faith in their military and political lead- 
ers," and the activity of the minority in "supporting strikes and 
spreading discontent." It argued that the Central Powers "would 
be likely to secure the votes of Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, 
Finland, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria." In line with 
the committee's recommendations, the annual general council of the 
British Federation (Gloucester, July, 191 7) declined the invitation 
to Berne, but urged the American Federation to attend the prior 
conference of Allied trade union bodies which it had now arranged 
with the French C. G. T. should be held in London September 10, 
in order to facilitate American participation. This preliminary inter- 
Allied trade union meeting was apparently favored by some not as 
a stepping-stone, but as a stumbling block to any subsequent inter- 
national gathering. Various cables from French and English sources 
indicated that leaders of the right looked to the presence of the 
A. F. of L. at this meeting as a deciding factor against Allied rep- 
resentation not only at Berne, but at Stockholm — which, in this mid- 
summer of 191 7, was the prime question agitating European labor 
bodies and ministries alike. Henderson was quitting the British 
cabinet on the issue of an international labor meeting and the sit- 
uation in France was almost as tense. 

Gompers cabled acceptance to Appleton, the A. F. of L. desig- 
nating as representatives its fraternal delegates to the annual meet- 
ing early in September (191 7) of the British Trades Union Congress 
at Blackpool. Now, this inter-Allied trade union conference of Sep- 
tember 10, arranged by the minor British General Federation, with 
its purely obstructive attitude toward the international conferences 
called by neutrals at Berne and Stockholm, was one in which the 
major British Trades Union Congress decided to have no part. 
The Blackpool Congress, its Parliamentary Committee fresh from 
another loosely hung inter-Allied meeting in August, decided rather 
to cast in its lot with the British Labour Party; begin at the bot- 
tom and, as told in Parts I and II, seek first to achieve unity in 
war aims between the two great British labor formations, indus- 
trial and political; on the solid basis of that unity seek, next, to 
achieve unity among the dominant Allied bodies, socialist and trade 
union alike; and on the solid basis of that unity, lay down on their 

eration of Trade Unions regarded this as impracticable and we refused 
any conference with Germans while the German army occupied Belgium 
gmd Northern France." 



234 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

own lines an inter-belligerent meeting while the war was on. The 
active participation of the French trade unionists (the C. G. T.) in 
this joint affirmative Socialist-labor offensive during the succeed- 
ing twelve months was at every point in contrast with the stand- 
off position throughout of the American (the A. F. of L.). Mean- 
while the committee of neutral socialists at Stockholm recognized 
this taking over of the initiative on the part of British and Allied 
labor as an exercise of the principle of self-determination and stood 
ready to cooperate in the changed procedure. 



THE TWO STOCKHOLMS 

The prompt and sweeping condemnation by the American Fed- 
eration of Labor of the initial Stockholm project and its attitude 
toward subsequent international conference proposals in 191 7 is 
clear from cables published in the American Federationist. 

In March and April, 19 17, Gompers had sent fraternal greetings 
to the Russian workers, acclaiming the proclamation of the pro- 
visional government and hailing their newly achieved liberty. On 
May 6, he sent a long cable to the Workmen's and Soldiers' Council 
of Deputies, at Petrograd, reaffirming that the "American govern- 
ment, the American people, the American labor movement are whole- 
heartedly with the Russian workers," denying "false reports of 
an American purpose and of American opinion" to the contrary and 
denouncing the "false pretences and underground plotting" of the 
German socialists to bring about "an abortive peace" through "pre- 
tended international conferences at the instigation and connivance of 
the Kaiser." On May 8, he sent identical cablegrams to the Con- 
federation Generate du Travail, the French Socialists and the Brit- 
ish Labour Party: — 

As you know, the most insidious influences are at work not only 
to create a pro-Kaiser propaganda but also to divide and alienate 
from one another the nations and peoples fighting for the freedom 
and democracy of the world. It is your duty as it is the duty of all 
to impress upon all labor organizations of European neutral coun- 
tries the truth about the pretended international socialist congress 
called to be held at Stockholm. It should be emphasized that it 
does not represent the working class of America, England, France 
or Belgium, but was called by the German socialists and certain 
other notoriously pro-German agitators in other countries either to 
bring about a Kaiser-dictated peace under the deceptive catch- 
phrase "no annexations, no indemnities," or in the hope of deceiving 
the Russian socialists into betraying the great western democracies 
into consenting to a separate peace. It was for the above reasons 



AMERICAN LABOR OUT OF IT 235 

I cabled yesterday direct to the Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' 
Deputies at Petrograd. 

This was the "Socialist Stockholm"; arranged by the Dutch- 
Scandinavian committee of which the pro-Ally Branting was chair- 
man, and the Belgian Huysmans secretary; to which American so- 
cialists, as in pre-war international party conferences, were invited 
but for which their delegates were refused passports by the U. S. 
government. Gompers identified the conference with the anti- 
war position taken at St. Louis in March by the American Social- 
ist Party, which would have been represented to the exclusion of 
the American Federation of Labor, and his partizanship showing 
through his patriotism in spots, transferred wholesale to Stockholm 
his denunciation (as pro-German) of his long-time antagonists in 
the American socialist movement. 

British labor was equally opposed to the Stockholm conference 
at the time (spring of 1917); and equally alive to the possibility 
that the German Majority Socialists might endeavor to exploit it 
to the disadvantage of the Allies. But because the Germans had 
exploited the American inventions of submarines and airplanes was 
no reason why the Allies should not employ them. As a matter of 
fact, the Stockholm conversations that were actually held, operated 
against intrigue and to the advantage of the Allied workers. In- 
stead of acting as a cover for the German majority group, they 
brought out into the open the hollowness of some of its positions 
which were exposed by the German minority delegation. The Brit- 
ish labor leaders recognized the good faith of the neutral group 
which promoted the Stockholm meetings, and also the construc- 
tive worth of its working principle as a means for free com- 
munication and common understanding, when in August, 191 7, 
in conjunction with the French and Russian socialist and labor 
groups, they agreed to attend a consultative conference which they 
felt would preserve that principle and safeguard against its abuse. 
Good faith and principle were again recognized when, later, they 
set going the much more deliberate and controlled procedure of 
their own, in which, at its final stage, they proposed to make use 
of the neutral offices of three members of the Stockholm committee 
— Branting, Troelstra and Huysmans. American labor apparently 
never apprehended these radical distinctions of principle and pro- 
cedure but contented itself with a simpler method of separating the 
sheep from the goats — as illustrated by the American exchanges with 
respect to a contemporaneous conference proposal. 

This was the "Trade Union Stockholm," which (June 6, 191 7) 
sent a message signed not only by Oudegeest (Holland), and Lind- 



236 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

quist (Sweden), but by Legien, Bauer and Sassenbach (Germany), 
Hueber (Austria), Jasza (Hungary) and Sakaroff (Bulgaria), as 
well as by representatives from Denmark, Norway and Finland, 
inviting the American Federation to an adjourned meeting. They 
received a non-committal cable in reply asking what international 
trade union centers were to be invited. The reader cannot escape 
the impression that the presence of socialists rather than of Germans 
in such an international gathering was Gompers' reliable touchstone! 
He cabled Appleton that it was impossible for him to answer the 
invitation definitely at once; meanwhile he would be pleased to 
have word from him. The adverse position of the British Federa- 
tion was learned, and the executive council of the A. F. of L. on 
June 27 in turn rejected the trade union Stockholm project "as 
premature and untimely"; it could "lead to no good purpose." x 

None the less, in May, James Duncan, first vice-president of the 
American Federation of Labor, had carried a letter of greeting from 
American labor to the "workers and people" of Russia, as a mem- 
ber of the Root Mission, and on June 13, Gompers cabled him: — 

Cablegrams from Petrograd published in American newspapers 
of June 11 contain information that a conference has been called at 
Petrograd to consider advisability of calling a congress of socialistic 
bodies and federations of trade unions of the world. The credential 
issued to you by Executive Council, American Federation of Labor, 
authorizes you to participate in such conference, and if invited, you 
are advised to accept and participate. The American Federation of 
Labor is the most democratically organized and controlled labor 
movement in the world, and of course you will insist upon accept- 
ance of fundamental principles of democracy for every country; 
also the necessity for all the peoples of each country, large and 
small, to live their own lives and work out their own destiny. The 
cause for which America entered the war was to safeguard these 
principles, and much as we desire peace, no false notions should 
prevail. The world cannot longer endure half autocracy and half 
democracy; either the one or the other will prevail, and American 
labor is in the fight for the destruction of autocracy and for the 
victorious universal establishment and maintenance of democracy. 

In July (191 7) the cables to America fairly hummed with invi- 
tations — from Huysmans at Stockholm, inviting the A. F. of L. 

x Human nature cropped out in the concluding paragraph of Gompers' 
reply to Lindquist : 

"If an international trade union conference is to be held, it should be 
at a more opportune time than the present or the immediate future, and 
in any event the proposals of the American Federation of Labor for 
international conference should receive further and more sympathetic 
consideration. Shall be glad to continue correspondence." 



AMERICAN LABOR OUT OF IT 237 

to the postponed international conference called by the socialist 
neutrals — in regard to which Gompers wanted more information; 
from Jouhaux at Paris (July 23), asking his opinion on the sum- 
moning of "all organized factions by the Russian Soviet," — which 
Gompers held could not "at this time or in the near future be 
productive of good"; from Appleton, at London, urging the A. F. 
of L. to attend the inter- Allied trade union conference he had ar- 
ranged with the French C. G. T. for September 10 in London, — 
which, as we have noted, Gompers accepted; from Henderson, at 
London (July 26), inviting delegates to an Inter- Allied and Social- 
ist Conference of August 8 — to which Gompers cabled regrets as the 
time was too short; and from Henderson in reply, setting the dates 
over to August 28 and 29. Nor were dates the only thing at issue. 1 
Clearly there was a jurisdictional dispute on, such as has been the 
order of business in labor conventions since the beginning of time, 
but on an international scale worthy of such past masters as Gom- 
pers and Henderson. Gompers wanted to bar out the American So- 
cialists and bring in the British General Federation. Henderson 
replied that they would not "exclude American Socialist Party" and 
"that the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress represented 
British organized labor." As a matter of fact, Henderson's August 
(191 7), conference did not get anywhere [Chapter II], Apple- 

1 Gompers' reply read : 

"It is possible American Federation of Labor delegates can reach 
London August 28, and if entering into conference cannot submit to 
representation of any other body claiming to represent United States 
Workers. American Trade Union movement has three and one-half 
million members and cannot divide responsibility with any other body 
claiming to represent American labor movement." 

In the meantime Appleton had cabled : 

"General Federation of Trade Unions not consulted concerning Labour 
Party Conference. Russian delegates made no communication officially 
or unofficially to Jouhaux or myself. Management committee still op- 
posed to conference with enemydelegates unless conference is preceded 
by German government's undertaking to evacuate France and Belgium 
and make reparation." 

Gompers replied to Appleton: 

"Your cablegram received. Have also received cablegram from Hen- 
derson strongly urging our federation delegates to attend conference 28, 
29. I have sent him following cable reply: 

"'Appleton informs me neither British General Federation Trade 
Unions of Jouhaux of Confederation Generale du Travail, France, have 
been consulted in calling or preparing for or participating in the confer- 
ence your party has called. How can American Federation of Labor 
regard such a conference as representing labor? 

" 'Our delegates will attend London conference labor representatives 
of Allied countries beginning September 10. Delegates are John Golden, 
James Lord.' " 



238 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

ton's September (191 7) conference apparently died aborning; and 
it was a full year before the American Federation of Labor and the 
two great British bodies sat in session together. Then each domi- 
nant group, apparently by tacit agreement and against the ma- 
nceuvering of the British right on the one hand, and the French 
left, on the other, was left master in its own house. Neither the 
American Socialists nor the British Federation as such were among 
those present! 

But this American-Allied conference (London, September, 
1918; Chapter XXII) was a reconvened meeting of that Inter- 
Allied Labour and Socialist Conference (London, February, 19 18, 
Chapter VIII) which the British had built up in the teeth of bitter 
resistance and prejudice when, at Blackpool, they determined to 
make a fresh start, distinct on the one hand from the efforts to 
secure an international socialist conference along pre-war lines at 
Stockholm and distinct, on the other hand, from the efforts to se- 
cure an international trade union conference along pre-war lines at 
Berne. It was this new front of Allied labor, closed ranks of social- 
ists and trade unionists alike, resistant to German militarism and 
insistent on outflanking it with an offensive of democratic ideas, 
which, throughout the intervening twelve months, American labor 
was "out of." 

THE BREAK ON PROCEDURE 

Throughout this period (September, 191 7 — September, 19 18) 
the British leaders believed they were in close step with President 
Wilson in their war aims and cited the common ground covered by 
their memorandum of December 27, 191 7, and his fourteen points 
of January 8, 19 18. At a time when the American president was 
taking the lead in a freer and more democratic statesmanship, Amer- 
ican labor hung back in throwing its weight alongside Allied labor 
in the new alignment of the forces for democracy among the Allied 
nations. 

True, at its Buffalo convention in November, 191 7, the American 
Federation of Labor had adopted the following formulation of peace 
terms: — 

1. The combination of the free peoples of the world in a com- 
mon covenant for genuine and practical cooperation to secure jus- 
tice and therefore peace in relations between nations. 

2. Governments derive their just power from the consent of the 
governed. 

3. No political or economic restrictions meant to benefit some 
nations and to cripple or embarrass others. 



AMERICAN LABOR OUT OF IT 239 

4. No indemnities or reprisals based upon vindictive purposes 
or deliberate desire to injure, but to right manifest wrongs. 

5. Recognition of the rights of small nations and of the prin- 
ciple, "No people must be forced under sovereignty under which it 
does not wish to live." 

6. No territorial changes or adjustment of power except in fur- 
therance of the welfare of the peoples affected and in furtherance 
of world peace. 

In addition to these basic principles, which are based upon dec- 
larations of our President of these United States, there should be 
incorporated in the treaty that shall constitute the guide of nations 
in the new period and conditions into which we enter at the close 
of the war the following declarations fundamental to the best inter- 
ests of all nations and of vital importance to wage-earners: 

1. No article or commodity shall be shipped or delivered in 
international commerce in tae production of which children under 
the age of 16 have been employed or permitted to work. 

2. It shall be declared that the basic workday in industry and 
commerce shall not exceed eight hours. 

3. Involuntary servitude shall not exist except as a punishment 
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. 

4. Establishment of trial by jury. 

Early in the new year (1918), British labor sent out its invi- 
tations to the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conference in Lon- 
don in February. On the receipt of such an invitation, the execu- 
tive council of the A. F. of L. drew up a statement on "Labor's War 
Aims" which contained this paragraph: — 

The common people everywhere are hungry for wider oppor- 
tunities to live. They have shown their willingness to spend or be 
spent for an ideal. They are in this war for ideals. Those ideals 
are best expressed by their chosen representative in a message de- 
livered to the Congress of the United States January 8, setting forth 
the program of the world's peace. President Wilson's statement of 
war aims has been unreservedly endorsed by British organized labor. 
It is in absolute harmony with the fundamentals endorsed by the 
Buffalo convention of the American Federation of Labor. 

But this statement of the Executive Council (published in the 
March Federationist) went outside the formulation of war aims at 
the Buffalo convention of the A. F. of L. in November, and took 
a position on the question of procedure. This position was adverse 
to that adopted the same month (February) by Allied labor at Lon- 
don: it discarded the weapon of labor diplomacy. To quote: — 

We regret that circumstances make impossible continuous close 
personal relations between the workers of America and those of 



240 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

the allied countries, and that we cannot have representation in the 
Inter-Allied Labour Conference about to convene in London. 

Their cause and purpose are our cause and purpose. We cannot 
meet with representatives of those who are aligned against us in 
this world war for freedom, but we hope they will sweep away 
the barriers which they have raised between us. Freedom and the 
downfall of autocracy must come in Middle Europe. 

We doubly welcome the change if it come through the workers 
of those countries. . . . 

Just there was the crux of the whole British labor procedure — 
to provoke that change by massing and transmitting evidences of 
unselfish intentions, coupled with assurances of fair play, should 
the German workers assert themselves toward the same ends. Shut 
off themselves for four years from free communication, the British 
workers did not have to be told how ignorance befriended reaction. 
Nationalists themselves, they did not have to be told how lack of 
such assurances must put a damper on political uprising even against 
an autocracy. These things played into the hands of the Junkers, 
no less than piling up recriminations and threats which drove a peo- 
ple back upon its instinct for self-defense. The position taken by 
the American Federation of Labor was of a sort to stall what to 
the British workers seemed the best chance for getting the contrary 
message through. They might well have quoted a passage from 
President Wilson's address at the Buffalo convention: — "A settle- 
ment is never impossible when both sides want to do the square and 
right thing." They wanted to do the square and right thing. But 
did the German workers know this? They proposed to tell them. 
Did the German workers want to do the square and right thing? 
They did not know. And they proposed to find out. The President 
was talking of labor conflicts, but it was after all their experience 
in labor conflicts which they were applying to the great war. "More- 
over," the President went on, 

a settlement is always hard to avoid when the parties can be brought 
face to face. I can differ from a man much more radically when 
he is not in the room than I can when he is in the room, because 
then the awkward thing is he can come back at me and answer what 
I say. It is always dangerous for a man to have the floor entirely 
to himself. Therefore, we must insist in every instance that the 
parties come into each other's presence and there discuss the issues 
between them and not separately in places which have no communi- 
cation with each other. 

In the invitation to the American Federation to be represented x 

a The American Socialist Party was specifically excluded from this 
. invitation, to meet the position taken by the A. F. of L. 



AMERICAN LABOR OUT OF IT 241 

at the Inter- Allied Conference in London on February 20, 1918, 
which Henderson mailed on January 16, he made it clear that not 
only would the British labor war aims be up for consideration to- 
gether with any amendments sent in on behalf of other Allied par- 
ticipants, but also the "very important question as to whether the 
time has arrived when we should hold an international conference." 
"Even if your federation," wrote Henderson, "does not quite agree 
with the two committees responsible for organizing the Inter-Allied 
Conference, it would be desirable that your representatives, and 
especially yourself, were present to put the American point of view." 
The question was still open. The favorable attitude toward it of 
the Allied labor and socialist bodies had been made clear, however, 
by the fraternal delegates at Nottingham. 

Gompers' reply was not cabled until February 18 (1918). It 
follows: — 

Your January 16 letter reached me late Saturday, February 9, 
and brought to attention Executive Council, American Federation of 
Labor, in session on eleventh. We regret that circumstances make 
impossible to be represented in the Inter-Allied Conference, London, 
February 20. 

Executive Council in declaration unanimously declared, "We can 
not meet the representatives of those who are aligned against us 
in this world war for freedom but we hope they will sweep away the 
barriers which they have raised between us." 

All should be advised that any one presuming to represent labor 
of America in your conference is simply self-constituted and unrep- 
resentative. 

We hope shortly to send delegations of representative workers 
American labor movement to England and France. 

Nothing could have better illustrated the baffling difficulties in 
the way of long distance communication between labor bodies in 
war time, than this very exchange between British and American 
groups. 

Gompers has stoutly denied that the A. F. of L. ever refused to 
take part in this London meeting. There is no reason to question 
his statement, although at Nottingham in mid- January it was cur- 
rent talk that the American Federation of Labor would not take 
part. He has as stoutly maintained that shortness of notice alone 
prevented its doing so. A phrase in the first paragraph of Hender- 
son's letter of January 16 to the effect that he was "sending here- 
with particulars" raises the presumption of an earlier message; and 
a report of the British Labour Party, published the June following, 
stated that a cable was actually sent on January 10, a full month 
prior to the date on which the A. F. of L. took action. The text of 



242 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

this cable was not printed in the Federationist. Gompers did not 
specifically state that the written invitation was the first word to 
reach him. But the whole moral force of his contention that the 
A. F. of L. was not represented because of lack of time rests on the 
implication that such a cable was never received. 

The wording of his reply of February 18 to Henderson's written 
invitation (without Henderson's inquiry at hand to show what the 
quotation from the Executive Council applied to) was not proof 
against a construction which might create misgivings in the public 
mind as to the make-up and patriotism of the Inter-Allied Labour 
Conference. But somebody did not leave this to chance. As pub- 
lished in the British press the day the conference opened, the follow- 
ing sentence was apparently part of Gompers' message: — 

American labor believes German influences inspired the London 
conference and until this is disproved will avoid the conference. 

Nothing could have been better timed than this postponed and 
altered cablegram to discredit the whole meeting at the very outset 
and to provoke discord among its members. But with the original 
reply in their hands the publicity committee of the conference gave 
the text out as received by them, together with a copy of the follow- 
ing cable: — 

"Gompers, 
"American Federation of Labor, 
"Washington. 
"Press in this country circulating statement, your alleged author- 
ity, that American labor believes German influences inspire the 
London conference. Nothing of this appears in your telegram to 
us. We feel sure you will resent gross falsification your message. 
Apparently part of campaign malicious misrepresentation on part 
enemies of labor. Trust you will dissociate your federation from 
statement which is wholly untrue." 

The Federationist stated (April) that the A. F. of L. cablegram 
was given out in Washington the day it was sent, and was cabled 
abroad by "some representative of the press in New York." There 
is nothing to indicate that the A. F. of L. endeavored to probe as 
to which side of the water the sentence was interpolated in a way 
which practically charged, in the name of American labor, that the 
conference leaders were traitors or German tools. Gompers, "owing 
to important official engagements which necessitated absence from 
Washington and to official duties that could not be deferred," al- 
lowed them to simmer from February 25 to March 13 before cabling 
a disclaimer of the sentence. Even then, he stopped short with 



AMERICAN LABOR OUT OF IT 243 

denying responsibility for the "garbled" text. While he took pains 
to reiterate his own unblemished position against meeting enemy 
labor, he was non-committal as to the libel for which his cable- 
gram had served as a carrier. 



CHAPTER XX 

LABOR IN LEADING STRINGS 

In the succeeding months every effort of the British labor major- 
ity to send spokesmen to America to overcome isolation and dis- 
tance and the misapprehensions bred of them, was successfully 
balked. Meanwhile, the extreme right of the British labor move- 
ment was not so circumscribed, nor was the American Federation of 
Labor. 

While the two great British labor bodies were drawing Allied 
labor into mutual conference in London (February, 191 8, the gov- 
ernment labor group had posted off to the United States a delega- 
tion of its own way of thinking. Seven days before the Labour 
Party executive sent its cabled invitation to America, the non-re- 
ceipt of which apparently prevented A. F. of L. participation in the 
London conference, Barnes of the War Cabinet sent this cable: — 

"Gompers, 

"Afel, Washington. 

"Letters received. Would you invite small delegation of labor 
men from here to come over and tour U. S. A.? We think it would 
be useful. I could send you about three of our best men. Best 
wishes. Happy New Year." 

To which Gompers replied, stipulating that they should be "true 
British trade unionists," and suggesting that they come in February 
(1918) so as to take part in Labour's Loyalty Campaign. 

"Each of the men was specially fitted to interpret British 
thought and purpose in regard to war and labor matters," said the 
American Federationist at the close of their tour. But, however 
ably and conscientiously they may have spoken for their unions 
or their government — or, for that matter, for the great mass of 
British labor so far as the prosecution of the war went, — they were 
not only out of touch with, but out of joint with, those great for- 
eign and domestic policies which now fired the British labor move- 
ment; rather, they were likely to short-circuit any understanding of 
these policies on this side of the water. They might speak for the 
British General Federation of Trade Unions whose president (Ap- 
pleton) was one of the delegates, but his penchant for speaking for 

244 



LABOR IN LEADING STRINGS 245 

the whole labor movement (not at all to its liking) had been not 
the least of the causes why the Parliamentary Committee of the 
Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party executive had dropped 
the Federation from the joint board in 191 7. They might speak 
for the British Workers' League, of which Victor Fisher was the 
moving spirit, but which had been roundly denounced at the Not- 
tingham meeting of the Labour Party. They had been selected 
without reference to, or consultation with, the two great labor 
bodies which together embrace over four-fifths of the organized 
workers of Great Britain. 

The publication of these facts while the delegates were on 
tour let the cat out of the bag and brought down Gompers' wrath 
at a meeting on March 6, of the National Civic Federation of which 
he is vice-president. This body dates back to the period of cor- 
porate expansion when industries were being organized on a na- 
tional scale, and its initiation by Ralph M. Easley represented an 
effort to build up better relations among the national organizations 
of employers, employees and the public. Compared with the anti- 
union, public-be-damned policy of the National Association of 
Manufacturers, it registered a notable advance toward understand- 
ing and cooperation, and its work in promoting negotiation, concilia- 
tion and arbitration is a progressive chapter in American industrial 
history. For many years this was carried on in the competent hands 
of Jolm Mitchell, until the United Mine Workers of America de- 
manded his withdrawal on the grounds of other of the Federation's 
activities. For the activities of its executive staff were not con- 
fined to the affirmative policy of building up better relations between 
capital and labor but were concerned also with cementing their 
partnership in the existing order to the defeat of any radical efforts 
to modify it. They long ago supplied lists of trade union and other 
speakers calculated to combat the propaganda of socialism. With 
the outbreak of the great war, they capitalized to the full the oppor- 
tunity to identify socialism as the sinister offspring of Kaiserism. 
Their habit has been, also, to lump with socialism, practical steps 
in the direction of social control, a habit which, linked, perhaps, with 
the dual elements in the membership of the Civic Federation, has 
resulted in an oblique opposition to reforms in the industrial field. 
The National Child Labor Committee encountered them in its cam- 
paigns for protective legislation against Southern cotton mill abuses, 
the American Association for Labor Legislation when it crossed 
swords with the employers' liability insurance companies over the 
creation of public compensation funds, the Russell Sage Founda- 
tion and the National Consumers League in their efforts to improve 
department store conditions and the New York State Factory Inves- 



246 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

tigation Commission in its findings for minimum wage legislation. 
At the present time, a subsidiary of the Federation is apparently 
engaged in a propaganda to combat compulsory sickness insurance 
as a German invention. The British Labour Party's reconstruction 
program was a snort in the nostrils of such obstructionists, and its 
proposals for an inter-belligerent conference while the war was on 
gave them fire and brimstone to breathe. 

In advance of this New York meeting of March 6, Easley, as chair- 
man of the board of the Civic Federation, sent out the following 
letter: — 

There has been observable within the last few weeks the rapid 
development of a serious break, in this country as well as in Europe, 
between a combination of the Pacifist, Socialist, Bolshevik and other 
pro-German forces, on the one hand, and, on the other, the organ- 
ized labor movement (represented in this country by the American 
Federation of Labor and the Railway Brotherhoods) and the other 
elements in our national life that stand for continuing the war until 
a just and permanent peace can be secured. 

The offensive has been taken by the Pacifists and Socialists in 
Europe and they are now arranging to send to this country a dele- 
gation to promote a program which practically means the securing 
of an immediate German peace. This is accomplished by the calling 
of an international labor and socialist conference at Stockholm or 
in Switzerland, where an overwhelming majority of the delegates, 
selected on the Socialist Party and Socialist Union membership 
basis, would be Germans or pro-Germans, thus enabling the Ger- 
mans to dominate every feature of the program. 

As a part of the program of the Pacifist-Socialists, who have ar- 
ranged to send a delegation here to initiate the propaganda in this 
country, a lure is held out to labor in the form of a proposed "after 
the war industrial program," which, when stripped of all unneces- 
sary verbiage, means nothing more nor less than Karl Marx social- 
ism, which has been repudiated by the labor organizations of the 
United States. As a prelude, or shall we say "barrage," they have 
already inaugurated from England an attack on the American 
Federation of Labor and especially on Mr. Gompers, as well as on 
British labor delegates now in this country who represent the trade 
union movement in Great Britain in the same manner as the Amer- 
ican Federation of Labor and the Railway Brotherhoods represent 
organized labor here, the trade union movement being the only 
one that has ever accomplished anything in the interest of labor in 
this or any other country. These assailed British delegates are the 
gentlemen who will be the guests of the National Civic Federation 
at luncheon on Saturday. 

The president of the A. F. of L., if we are to believe an inspired 
cable to the London Times, "traveled to New York expressly to de- 



LABOR IN LEADING STRINGS 247 

nounce the critics of his labor co-partners from Great Britain." 
The press made much of a remark attributed to him that "to talk 
peace now was to play the German game," but he avoided any direct 
references to the British labor offensive. The following speaker, 
with whom he compared notes, practised no such decorum. 

This was William English Walling, ten years before an exponent 
of syndicalism, in rebellion against the existing rigid political action- 
ist regime in the Socialist Party, a proponent of direct action and 
the I. W. W. and a defender of working class morality which would 
treat a labor contract as "a scrap of paper." He quoted reports 
of the speeches at Nottingham in a way to identify the British-Allied 
movement with the Bolsheviki and with the extreme left in France 
and Italy. To do this it was necessary to associate the responsible 
leadership of the London conference with either insincerity or fee- 
bleness and wholly to ignore the first edge of the British labor blade 
— unremitting resistance to Prussian militarism in the field. Hen- 
derson was the "political boss" of the "British laborite pacifists." 
Walling read into his "moral ultimatum to the governments from an 
organized democracy," the Zimmerwaldian doctrine of an immediate 
general strike to end the war. Vandervelde had been anxious to 
have the American Federation of Labor present at the London meet- 
ing, believing that it would sustain him in his position that prior 
to sitting in conference with labor bodies from the Central Empires, 
Allied labor should demand of them explicit subscription to the con- 
ditions of a democratic peace, and guarantees that "in their turn 
they are also resolved to proceed not to words but to acts for this 
democratic peace against the Kaiser, and not for the Kaiser against 
a democratic peace." He had carried the conference with him in 
this conservative course, but Walling could see no other interpreta- 
tion to his words than that "even Vandervelde is ready to pledge a 
revolution in France and England to accompany a revolution in Ger- 
many." "Every socialist at the Allied conference," said Walling, 
"knew that the only possible purpose of an international socialist 
meeting would be ... to compromise with the Germans." Vander- 
velde, that March morning in this fourth year of the war, to which 
he had given himself unstintedly, was probably in some bomb- 
wracked town in the little strip of free Belgium which stretched from 
Nieuport to Ypres, or visiting soldiers in the swampy Belgian trench 
line who, to keep from freezing, had had to keep moving during the 
bitter hours of the night in their unheated barns. Throughout the 
winter, he had contrived, as Minister of Intendance and with the 
help of the American Red Cross, better shelters, rest rooms, kitchens 
and the like to help make them fit until spring broke and with it the 
expected German drive. Against this they more than proved their 



248 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

mettle in spite of canards that they were defeatists: directed not 
only at Belgian labor but at the Belgian troops. This was the type 
of socialist and labor leader who, from three thousand miles away, 
was pictured as weakly yielding to a conference project which would 
throw the war at expense of the democratic principles the Allied 
workers had unanimously made their own for war or for peace. 

It was, perhaps, significant, that Crawford Vaughan, ex-premier 
of South Australia and a colleague of Hughes', was also present at 
this American meeting. 

The report of the meeting, as published in the New York press, 
and as cabled to London, was to the discredit of Henderson and his 
following and to the entire rehabilitation of Appleton and the rest 
of the government labor delegation who looked on. The following 
from the London Daily News (February 16) is a sufficient com- 
mentary of their real status among British liberals at home: — 

We have been anything but happy in our choice of emissaries to 
America in the past three years. At the present time there is a 
party of British trade unionists in America. They were selected 
by the war cabinet, not by the labor movement in this country, and 
they are in point of fact utterly unrepresentative of the solid mass 
of British labor on so vital a question as the holding of an inter- 
national conference. Mr. Appleton's attitude, for example, is dia- 
metrically opposed to the decision of the four million members rep- 
resented by the Trades Union Congress. It is well that that should 
be recognized in America, for we cannot allow differences of pur- 
pose to be assumed where, in fact, they do not exist. And if there 
is one prediction that can be made with more confidence than an- 
other of the trend of the growing volume of democratic thought in 
England, it is that it will flow with ever increasing momentum down 
the channels cut by the authorized exponents of the policy of Amer- 
ica. Mr. Wilson's League of Nations is the beacon hope of the 
democracy of Great Britain. His resolve that the war shall remain 
a war of liberation and not of aggrandizement is their resolve. 
They, like him, demand that the military weapon shall, continu- 
ously, be reinforced by the political. So far as their spokesmen con- 
vey any other impression, they convey a false impression. 

On their return to England, the British delegation was enter- 
tained at dinner (May 30) by the Industrial League, organized 
along the lines of the National Civic Federation, at which G. H. 
Roberts, M.P., Minister of Labour, received "the delegates as the 
most trusted in the (British labor) movement and the most devoted 
to its aims"; and announced that the 

future of the labor movement abided with the people who were 
represented there that night. The past was dead. The old cries, 



LABOR IN LEADING STRINGS 249 

the old shibboleths, had gone never more to be resuscitated. They 
could not allow mere sentimentalism to guide them. His purpose 
was work and wages for his own people. First of all, he was 
going to be concerned with the prosperity of his own country. It 
was too late to discriminate between one class and another in Ger- 
many. 

In response, Charles Duncan, one of the delegates, said: — 

Of all the men he had met in the trade-union movement he placed 
Samuel Gompers at the top — a long way ahead of . the rest. He 
agreed with the attitude and policy displayed by the American Fed- 
eration of Labor in regard to the socialist movement in the United 
States. The downfall of the labor movement in this country would 
be its association with the socialist movement. 

Appleton claimed that the delegation to America had represented 
"99/^ per cent of the people of this country," and in an interview 
railed at the "so-called intellectuals claiming to be labor," who 
build — 

airy structures of rhetorical formulae which look very impressive 
if you don't examine them too closely and if you can forget, as 
Clemenceau says, that "the Germans are at Noyon." Whether they 
like it or not, they are playing the German game. . . . 

THE AMERICAN LECTURE TRIP 

This interview was later circulated as a press sheet in the United 
States by the American Alliance of Labor and Democracy, of which 
Gompers is president, and which in March announced the personnel 
of a labor delegation to visit England as representative of the Amer- 
ican Federation of Labor. Chester Wright, formerly editor of the 
Socialist Call, who went as secretary, was quoted in the "formal 
announcement" published in the New York Tribune (March 29), 
as follows: — 

The delegation will deal with the General Federation of Trade 
Unions as the representative labor body of Great Britain. It will 
not mix in the politics or other internal affairs of either England 
or France. It has under its credentials the right to confer with 
labor representatives of the Allied countries, but it will have noth- 
ing to do with the representatives of enemy countries. 

On the matter of dealing with representatives of the enemy, it 
will stand on the specific declaration of the American Federation of 
Labor against dealing or truckling with representatives of the enemy 
while the war is on. 

Generally it will investigate conditions and report to the con- 
vention of the American Federation of Labor at its annual conven- 
tion in St. Paul on June 10, 1918. 



250 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

Their visit was something very different from a free interplay 
between organized labor here and abroad (which was clearly 
desirable and consonant with our ideas of open democracy), or even 
with a friendly visit on its own by an American labor mission (which 
was clearly the impression created by the announcements in the 
United States). They were "bona fide" trade unionists selected 
and accredited as an official delegation by the American Federation. 
They went, however, if we are to believe Wright, to deal with a 
minor labor faction reflecting the views of the government labor 
group of the extreme right, and to deal with it mistakenly "as the 
representative labor body of Great Britain." And they went at the 
expense of the propaganda office of the British government, at a time 
when the same elements in the government were successfully stop- 
ping the truly representative British labor bodies from sending any 
spokesmen whatever to America, who might defend them from out- 
rageous misrepresentation or lay the basis for a better understand- 
ing. For not only was the delegation held up which was appointed 
by the Inter-Allied Labour Conference in February to go to Amer- 
ica "to confer with the forces of democracy," but also the fraternal 
delegates appointed by the British Trades Union Congress to attend 
the A. F. of L. convention in June. 

This is not the place to follow the round of the American labor 
delegation in England before they left for France — their stay at 
Warwick Castle, their dinner at the House of Commons, their ban- 
quet at Whitehall, their reception by royalty, their visit to battle 
cruisers in the Firth of Forth, and their tours through industrial 
centers. 

In their conferences with the British labor leaders some of 
them showed that they still labored under the illusion that the 
latter, who had been in the fight for four years, were ready to 
accept peace terms dictated by Germany and needed homilies on 
patriotism by Americans who had been in scarcely one; that Allied 
labor was still talking in terms of the old Socialist International; 
and that the British wanted to enter into negotiations of a binding 
character — get up from the table with a signed document which 
they might hand over to their governments with a "there you are 
— we have settled it for you" — incidents, all, which indicated the 
sort of misrepresentations on which they had been fed up. Thomas 
said to them bluntly that "whatever they might have been told on 
the other side, and notwithstanding any suggestion they might have 
received on this side, they must realize that the politically and indus- 
trially organized workers of Great Britain spoke through two na- 
tional committees and through no other bodies." 

Perhaps the best interpretation of the A. F. of L. position was put 



LABOR IN LEADING STRINGS 251 

by James Wilson [chairman] at Whitehall, when he said (April 28, 
1918): 

The American labor movement, on whose behalf my colleagues 
and myself are authorized to speak, declares most emphatically that 
it will not agree to a peace conference with the enemies of civiliza- 
tion, irrespective of what cloak they wear, until Prussian militarism 
has withdrawn within its own boundaries ; 1 and then not until they 
have, through proper representations, proved to our satisfaction 
that they recognize the right of the peoples of civilized nations to 
determine for themselves what shall be their standard. Unless a 
reconstruction soon comes from the German workers within that 
country, it is now plain that an opportunity to uproot the agencies 
of force will only come when democracy has defeated autocracy in 
the military field, and won the right to reconstruct relations between 
nations and men. Spontaneous uprisings in Germany in protest 
against the militarist Government have shown that the German gov- 
ernment is still stronger than the movement for German emancipa- 
tion. German freedom is ultimately the problem of the German 
people, but the defeat of Prussian autocracy in the field will bring 
an opportunity for German liberty at home. That the American 
government, indeed the American people, are of this opinion is 
proved by the preparations they are making to coordinate all their 
means with the Allied nations for the defeat of the Central Powers. 

There again was the old crux of the matter. British labor was 
for breasting Prussian autocracy in the field; but they saw no rea- 
son, while doing so, to throw away any chance to loosen any forces 
for democracy behind the German front and win them as new allies 
for a democratic peace. The fact that Prussian militarism was 
still stronger than the movement for German emancipation was a 
reason, as they saw it, for giving help to the emancipators; not for 
refusing it. In the joint meetings between the delegates of the 
A. F. of L., the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union 
Congress, the Executive of the Labour Party, and members of the 
Parliamentary Party, Henderson said that their desire to meet the 
Americans was due to the fact that owing to shortness of notice 
the latter had been unable to send delegates to the February meet- 
ing. While the conference regretted their absence, it had felt bound 
to go on with its work and reached two fundamental decisions: (1) 
in regard to an agreement on war aims, and (2) as to the method of 
accomplishing these aims. He pointed out that, with respect to the 
first, there was no difference in principle from the A. F. of L. war 

1 This position should be compared with that taken by Appleton of the 
British General Federation in his messages to Gompers (pages 232, 237). 
The A. F. of F. now echoed what the British Federation had said in 
turning down its own earlier overtures. 



2 52 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

aims formulated in the statement endorsed by the Buffalo Conven- 
tion of 191 7. He thought it would be a great step forward if the 
delegates could recommend that the two were so much in harmony 
that the A. F. of L. should publicly associate itself with the inter- 
Allied proposals. 

On the question of method, the memorandum laid down two pro- 
posals: (a) of a concurrent or simultaneous conference of workers' 
representatives while the official peace congress met, (b) of a pre- 
liminary or intermediate international conference. The first pro- 
posal came originally from the A. F. of L. On that there was agree- 
ment. The issue narrowed down to the question of a preliminary 
conference. While objecting to anything in the nature of a binding 
conference, he hoped the Americans would not object to conversa- 
tions with the German representatives. 

The Americans took to heart the principle of a consultative con- 
ference to the extent of applying it to these meetings. Their pur- 
pose was not to reach agreement, but only to converse and under- 
stand each other! They had no power to enter into negotiations but 
only to report back. From the British point of view, the most hope- 
ful statement made was tha\t of one American delegate to the 
effect that America had not been through what Britons had suffered 
and had not as yet made the same sacrifices. If reasons were ad- 
vanced, or new light thrown upon the situation, if, after the expe- 
rience of some eighteen months of war, some other position should 
be taken up, if it could be shown that as far as labor was concerned 
some way of bringing down the military machine had been found, 
the A. F. of L. would not be found wanting. 

For the most part the visitors had a penchant for opening off 
with speeches declaring America's inflexible determination to get 
on with the war to "beat the Hun" — speeches which in the words of 
one British committeeman, "had been heard a thousand times on 
both sides of the Atlantic and no question of policy or principle 
arose from them." 

While this was true in the conferences, and while the visitors 
lapsed more than once into that "weak language" of the American 
headline writers from which the President dissociated himself in 
his Baltimore address, their speeches on public occasions, in so far 
as they were affirmative testimony as to American effort, served a 
very real purpose. We must remember that this was in April and 
May, with the German offensive at its height, and with the casualty 
lists lengthening and lengthening in the British press. And it was 
heartening for the British public to be told in ringing utterances, 
by representatives of organized labor in the New Yorld, that the 
plain people of America were with them in the struggle, that while 



LABOR IN LEADING STRINGS 253 

250,000 men were coming overseas a month, uncounted others were 
putting their backs into the production of fuel and ships and muni- 
tions, that all America was in, and would be with them till the 
Prussian thrust was broken, and liberty safe. That, in common 
with all England, the British workers were glad to hear, and could 
match with fresh exertions in those months of stress from Land's 
End to John o'Groats; but they matched also the new spirit of 
democracy in which the American President had broken through the 
encrusted statecraft of the Allied powers — matched it with their 
own collective effort toward the same end. The issue of the new 
open diplomacy of labor still stood, and on that they were baffled by 
the association of American labor with the very forces which for 
three years of war had clung to a course contrary to their procedure, 
and contrary to that of the American President. The American 
delegates, for example, were to be found going from a reception at 
10 Downing Street to the House of Commons, where they were 
guests of the British General Federation and where Barnes of the 
War Cabinet, Hodge of the Ministry of Pensions, Havelock Wilson 
of the Sailors' Union, O'Grady and the rest of the government labor 
group of the extreme right were much in evidence; they were to be 
found speaking at mass meetings under the National War Aims Com- 
mittee with Appleton presiding, and to be found at a dinner of the 
Industrial League with Roberts in the chair. They iterated and 
reiterated their position "to talk no peace until victory had been 
achieved," that the only negotiations they could have with the Ger- 
mans were the negotiations of armed men, munitions and ships, 
and that they 

had listened to reasons why conferences of an inter-Allied character 
were asked for, and the members of the Mission were returning to 
America more determined than ever that the course that had been 
pursued by the labor movement there was the only proper course to 
pursue in the struggle in which the world was engaged. 

— all of which was of a sort to undermine the British majority lead- 
ers and to put it in the position of truckling to Germany. In 
the industrial districts the visiting delegates did not confine them- 
selves to exhibiting American devotion, but contrived a "holier-than- 
thou" attitude. One of them addressed the shop stewards as fol- 
lows: 

We've heard a lot about you chaps, and we know of some of 
your difficulties; but your job to-day is to beat the Hun first and to 
settle your working differences afterwards. 

And another American delegate addressed a group of Clyde 
workers, saying: 



254 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

How, in the name of God, can those who love democracy think 
of conferring with Germans who have committed such horrible 
outrages against innocent women and children? 

The Christian Commonwealth is an organ of modern radical 
nonconformity in Great Britain. It was instrumental in calling the 
American preacher, Fort Newton, to the City Temple of London. 
The labor comment of the Christian Commonwealth is considered 
well informed and moderate. A. E. Zimmern, of the Workers' Edu- 
cational Association, recommends it as perhaps the safest guide of 
any in England to the main body of labor opinion. 

The Christian Commonwealth said of the American labor dele- 
gation after the gatherings in the House of Commons: 

Good fellowship and the traditions of hospitality did not prevent 
the visitors hearing, apparently for the first time, and to their own 
manifest surprise, that British labor has had a longer experience of 
war than the American workers and is in a position to give rather 
than to take lessons from American labor on the duties of the work- 
ing-class movement in war time. . . . 

It must be admitted that the circumstances attending the visit 
of the American labor delegates gave color to the suspicion that 
American labor had conceived a totally wrong impression of the 
nature of the democratic peace policy to which it was invited to 
lend its support. The allied deputation which was to have visited 
America to explain this policy was postponed in consequence of the 
announcement that a delegation had been appointed by the American 
Federation of Labor to discuss the situation with representatives of 
labor on this side of the Atlantic. But the difficulties encountered by 
the allied deputation in arranging to go to America, contrasted with 
the celerity of the arrangements made to facilitate the visit of the 
American delegation, traveling under government auspices, give the 
latter mission an equivocal appearance. There seemed to be more 
anxiety to enable British labor to hear what the Americans had to 
say than to enable American labor to hear what the allied working- 
class leaders had to say in justification of the policy unanimously 
adopted at the recent joint conference. 

In view of the fact that the present American delegation has no 
power to commit the American Federation of Labor to any new 
policy on war aims, it is not surprising if the visit is regarded here 
as delaying the policy of international conciliation. 

British labor had shown its readiness to meet American labor 
half way. Henderson had stated that the next move was "up to" 
German labor, that German labor must show it was trying to shake 
loose from the military power. On April 17 he said: 

We want to make it clear that the grasping policy and lust for 
world domination of their government are the greatest obstacles to 



LABOR IN LEADING STRINGS 255 

world peace; but as we refused to support any imperialistic designs, 
so must they. 

On April 26 he said: 

The working-class parties in the Allied countries believe, in the 
words of the War Aims Memorandum, that, whoever wins, the peo- 
ples will have lost unless an international system is established which 
will prevent war. 

Earlier in this chapter we endeavored to set down the antithesis 
of British and American labor procedure in relation to the emanci- 
pation of the German working classes. Here, at risk of once more 
covering ground that was dealt with earlier in this book, let us set 
down that antithesis in relation to domestic opinion. 

The point as British labor saw it was this: The Allies must 
down Prussian militarism. They must establish a democratic peace. 
They must safeguard that peace by the instrument of a league of 
nations. The only way to effect these aims was to hold together the 
moderate and liberal elements in the Alliance and to keep them effi- 
cient in war-making. The appeal for winning the war to these 
ends must be to the liberal-minded forces. The reactionaries were 
too few and divisive. Thus, right in the crisis of the western offen- 
sive, the Saturday Review was whitewashing Turkey and satirizing 
"stories" of Turkish injustice to subject races. Some were seeking 
a road to the old-fashioned sort of "peace" which would bolster 
up Turkey in the balance of power. Lord Denbigh, aided in the 
Tory press, was mocking the idea of a league of nations. He de- 
scribed the efforts in its behalf of such men as Lord Buckmaster and 
Lord Parmoor as revolting. Another section of the Tory press had 
initiated an attack on the Vatican. Ireland was to be conscripted. 
These were a few instances out of many of the absence of cohesion 
among the reactionaries. 

Opposed to this disruption, these scattered and antagonistic 
aims, these "infinitely repellent particles," held together by the 
militancy of Lloyd George, was the democratic war policy of the 
British labor movement and British liberals, which found in Presi- 
dent Wilson their greatest interpreter. To maintain the clarity and 
fighting edge of that war policy, the British labor movement and 
British middle-class liberals needed the sympathy and cooperation 
of American public opinion. 

A distinguished government official, who had recently made an 
investigation of British conditions, wrote at this time that he found 

a lassitude due to uneasiness felt as to the future by the privileged 
classes, and a lassitude among the lowest classes. There is no clear 



256 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

general realization of the extent and danger of this lassitude. I 
found among the captains of industry a childish optimism as to the 
future. I have heard all sorts of opinions, optimistic in official 
circles, far less so from certain labor leaders. 

The controlling majority of the British labor movement clearly 
realized this lassitude and was fighting against it by striving for a 
united industrial population back of the democratic goals held aloft 
in its war aims and in its reconstruction plan. A spiritual unity of 
command back of the line was as much needed as the unity of mil- 
itary command achieved in the person of General Foch. Toward 
creating and sustaining this united western front of labor the Amer- 
ican visitation of April and May, 191 8, was a hindrance and not a 
help. 



CHAPTER XXI 

THE SO-CALLED SPLIT 

In the chapter "The Right Strikes Back," the separatist move- 
ments at both extreme wings of British labor were brought 
out. The June (191 8) conference witnessed the first Labour Party 
election under the new constitution. The executive was to be com- 
posed of twenty-two persons, of whom thirteen were to be represen- 
tative of the trade unions and other affiliated organizations, five of 
local organizations, four women, all to be elected by the conference 
as a whole. Less than four per cent of that whole were socialist party 
members. The election was absolutely in the hands of the union 
vote. Yet, although the I. L. P. had lost its right to separate repre- 
sentation, two of the members actually elected to the Labour Party 
executive were also members of the I. L. P. executive, one was an 
ex-member, one of the four women members was Mrs. Philip Snow- 
den, and Ramsay MacDonald was reelected treasurer. This made 
up a third of the executive, and with two or three other members 
holding much the same views the decisive swing toward the left 
was now registered by nearly one-half the executive. 

Thus, the voting indicated that the policies held by the Inde- 
pendent Labour Party alone in the earlier years of the war had 
become the political expression of an increasing number of trade 
unionists. This represented a reaction against the knock-out policy 
as that was interpreted by its British spokesman, at a time when the 
mailed fist policy of the German General Staff was at its climax. 
The controlling trade union membership believed in the govern- 
ment's use of the military weapon and, therefore, continued the 
labor members in it. They distrusted the government's use of the 
diplomatic weapon and, therefore, set out to take over into their own 
hands the potentialities of working-class negotiations. They had 
adopted the ideology offered by their recognized radicals, brought 
them into their councils, but proposed to keep the execution of 
their alternative procedure in those same hands, rather than in those 
of any less inclusive body. 

Meanwhile, with a general election in the offing, the extreme 
right had not been idle. 

In May, J. A. Seddon and Victor Fisher of the British Workers 

2.57 



258 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

League, which attacked the Labour Party hip and thigh on war 
and domestic issues, and had put candidates in the field against it, 
gave out that it had 

during the last 18 months, organized thousands of meetings among 
the working-classes throughout the country, at which the war aims 
of the country have been explained, and the iniquities of the enemy 
exposed. Hundreds of meetings, at which our speakers are enthusi~ 
astically applauded, are still being held every week. In addition to 
this, pamphlets and leaflets, exposing the devices of the pacifists, 
and explaining the objects of the war, and the scheme of national 
reconstruction put forward by our league for adoption after the 
war, are distributed by tens of thousands. 

Early in the spring, J. B. Williams, head of the Amalgamated 
Musicians' Union (whose membership is 10,000), began issuing 
circulars advocating a Trade Union Party, to be run under the 
authority of the Trades Union Congress. One of the circulars was 
signed by twenty trade union officials and members, two of whom 
were members of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union 
Congress. At a joint meeting of the Parliamentary Committee and 
the Executive Committee of the British Labour Party, the following 
resolution was adopted by a vote of thirteen to four: 

That this Joint Meeting of the Parliamentary Committee and 
Labour Party Executive, having considered the circular issued by 
J. B. Williams and signed by certain trade union officials, wherein 
an appeal is made for the formation of a Trade Union Labour Party 
which, in our opinion, is calculated to disrupt a movement built up 
by years of sacrifice, calls upon those responsible to immediately 
discontinue such action, and trusts no further steps will be necessary 
to enforce what loyalty our movement has a right to expect from 
those holding such responsible positions. . . . 

The Executive Committee holds very strongly that no worse 
service could be rendered to the movement under present circum- 
stances than that any attempt should be made to disrupt either the 
political or industrial forces of labor. . . . 

Henderson warned the Labour Party at its June conference that 
"it was up against a very sinister attempt to paralyze the whole 
labor movement by division, coming from those who had done noth- 
ing to build up its strength." Immediately thereafter, W. J. Davis 
(Amalgamated Brass Workers), J. B. Williams and Havelock Wil- 
son got up a meeting at Caxton Hall, Westminster, to "repudiate" 
the breaking of the party truce by the Labour Party, to promote 
the rival trade union body, and to advance the cause of the five 



THE SO-CALLED SPLIT" 259 

year boycott agitated by the sailors. This they proceeded to do. 1 
The Caxton Hall meeting was reported to have been attended by 
four hundred individuals. It was not a delegate conference which 
delegates, authorized by the vote of their unions, had been sent. 
Davis, who presided, said the meeting was to "oppose the tac- 
tics of a despicable section of the Labour Party who represented 
pacifist opinions," and Williams, who acted as secretary, that "they 
did not want a peace such as the Bolshevists had obtained." "Be- 
hind the intention to force a crisis" in the government, he saw the 
"sinister figure of Lord Lansdowne." Clearly they were striking 
at the Labour Party in terms of the I. L. P. Havelock Wilson 
assured them that there would be no sudden appearance of Kerensky 
with kisses for the chairman, but said that he had intended to intro- 
duce some representatives of a Russian committee which included 
a Cossack general, members of the Duma, and other representative 
bodies in Russia. They wanted an endorsement of the trade union 
movement in this country to assist the establishment of good gov- 
ernment in Russia. The committee, he said, were of one opinion, that 
"Kerensky is a gas bag of the most dangerous type, and was respon- 
sible for the state of affairs in Russia." The incident is of signifi- 
cance only as throwing a sidelight on the international affiliations of 
some of the promoters of the meeting. They were for military inter- 
vention in Russia, for counter-revolution, and apparently were not 
unfriendly to the restoration of the Romanoffs. Wilson went into 
greater details about this Russian committee in the Morning Post, 
a reactionary paper: 

They [the committee] simply ask that the Russian people be 
allowed to work out their own salvation, and they request that the 

1 The resolutions adopted, which were circulated among trade union- 
ists in advance, follow : 

"(1) This Congress declares in favor of a distinct political Labour 
Party for the trade union movement, based on the representation of and 
controlled by congress, and instructs the Parliamentary Committee to take 
the steps necessary to establish a Trade Union Labour Party. 

"(2) That this Congress records its condemnation of the brutal mur- 
ders and robbery of British and neutral seamen on the high seas by the 
commanders and crews of German U-boats. We further regret that such 
piracy has been justified by prominent leading trade unionists in Germany, 
members of the Central Council of the International Transport Workers' 
Federation, L. Brunner, J. Doring, Paul Muller, and Oswald Schumann. 
This meeting is, therefore, of opinion that there can be no peace by nego- 
tiation with a nation which attempts to justify such abominable crimes 
as those committed on the high seas. It, therefore, resolves that for a 
period of five years there shall be no intercourse with the German nation 
unless the people take full Parliamentary control over their_ Kaiser and 
Government and make full reparation for the crimes committed." 



260 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

Allied governments will give them a force of about 30,000 allied 
troops, representative of all nations on the Allies' side, to start from 
Vladivostok and help the Russian Cossacks and others to link up 
and formulate some government. The Siberians favor a republican 
form of government, others down South are in favor of a limited 
monarchy, but that is a matter they assure me can be adjusted 
among themselves. 

Here was the famous labor split which misled one or two of the 
delegation from the American Federation of Labor into thinking 
they had started something that would disrupt the British Labour 
Party. Williams, Davis, Wilson and their unions were not affiliated 
with the British Labour Party, so that they could scarcely qualify 
as splitters from something to which they did not belong. The 
new party was the creation of a handful of men, in nearly all in- 
stances without the backing of their trade unions. 

The Tory Morning Post was of the same way of thinking as 
the American labor delegates and hailed the Caxton Hall outfit as 
the "genuine trade union political party." Responsible trade union 
opinion was to the contrary. Said J. W. Ogden, chairman of the 
Parliamentary Committee: 

There are two necessary parts to the labor movement — the indus- 
trial and the political. You will have the whole-hearted support of 
the Parliamentary Committee (the executive of the Trades Union 
Congress) in deprecating any attempt to hurt the Labour Party. 
We back Mr. Henderson. To go outside of the party is not the way 
to work any reform. I say on behalf of the industrial movement, 
anything that disrupts the political movement disrupts the industrial 
movement. If the matter of the new trade union political party 
comes before the Trades Union Congress, I hope it will meet the 
same unity of opposition as in this conference. 

The Observer, a Sunday newspaper and review which is a semi- 
official government organ in that its editor is an interpreter of the 
Lloyd George policy, had this to say: 

Mr. Davis and his friends show wisdom in adopting a trade union 
basis for their venture and not merely starting a rival political party 
of the ordinary type, as the British Workers' League did in founding 
the National Democratic and Labour Party. Trade union feeling 
might conceivably be exploited and a fraction of the union member- 
ship be detached from the socialist alliance. But the attempt is 
made too late. The issue was decided when the new constitution 
of the (real) Labour Party was under discussion. This constitu- 
tion, retaining as it does the block vote and the predominance of 
the unions, gives the most conservative among them the safeguards 



THE SO-CALLED SPLIT 261 

they need against pacifism, revolution and all the other bogies — 
and they know it. The labor movement means to act as a unit for 
political purposes; the Labour Party is a very efficient instrument 
for this intention. The right wing will tolerate any slight failure 
in enthusiasm for the party's war aims on the part of the left wing, 
and will stay within the party itself even if it has not quite digested 
The New Social Order for which the left wing is mainly responsible. 

On July 1, the Manchester Guardian said: 

Far from splitting, the Labour Party is drawing closer together 
and bringing in fresh recruits at the same time that it is shifting 
politically towards the position of its left wing. 



THE SAILORS AND THEIR BOYCOTT 

Some of the attendants at the Caxton Hall meeting turned u^ 
that same evening at a meeting of the Merchant Seamen's League, 
the object of which, according to the indefatigable Havelock Wilson, 
was "to discover the true voice of labor regarding the war." Here 
Commander Sir Edward Nichol presided and G. H. Roberts, Min- 
ister of Labour, expressed himself as ready to join with the mer- 
chant seamen and other sections of the community in determining 
that they would not enter into trade relationship with Germany un- 
til she had "after years of purging" proved her right to be admitted 
into the comity of civilized nations. The guest of the evening was 
none other than the prime minister of the commonwealth of Aus- 
tralia. Hughes said, among other things: 

I am glad to have the opportunity to pay my tribute of respect 
and admiration for the part played by Mr. Havelock Wilson. 
(Cheers.) He has shown to the world what unionism, rightly di- 
rected, can do. He has shown the power of labor, and that a man 
may be a keen and resolute fighter for the rights of labor and yet 
be a patriot. Labor has great opportunities opened to it by the war. 
It has great responsibilities thrown upon it. It might take, if it 
liked, the path that has been blazed for it by the Bolshevists, it 
might sink into some bottomless morass, or it might turn resolutely 
and tread that steep and difficult path that patriotism and common 
sense alike dictate. 

By the end of August, the League reported that it had distributed 
1,500,000 copies of its manifesto and declaration form among trade 
unionists in and out of the service. Havelock Wilson gave out: 

A letter from a brigade major, "written by direction and on 
behalf of Brigadier-General A. R. Harman, C.M.G., D.S.O.," asks 



262 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

that 1,000 copies of the declaration form should be sent for distri- 
bution among the officers and men of the brigade. 

"People at home," writes another soldier, "have no idea of the 
feeling overseas among the men, and they will be considerably sur- 
prised when they come home and express their opinions. In the 
meantime, and in the event of an election, there must be no doubt 
of the battle cry. The lads out here will stick it all right if you only 
keep on backing them up as you are doing." 

A captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps says he is in favor 
of the boycott, and adds : "Please make it 60 years." A soldier 
three years in the trenches wants "a clean sweep of our Huns who 
misrepresent us in Parliament and out." Another demands that 
labor shall "shift the Bolos from the trade union ranks." 

Wilson carried his campaign personally to the heart of Robert 
Smillie's district in Scotland and, reporting on meetings at Larkhall 
and Hamilton, said: 

There would be about 500 people present — as many as the hall 
would hold — and the audience seemed to be about equally divided. 
The "Bolshies," however, were not local people ; they had been 
beaten up from the whole of Scotland. The only question they put 
was "What about Stockholm?" I told them this was the very sub- 
ject on which I had intended to address them. We seamen gloried 
in the fact that we prevented the peace delegates from going to 
Stockholm. What was more, so long as the war continued, whether 
the Government issued passports or not, the seamen would absolutely 
decline to carry these people. The declaration was received with 
shouts of "Shame !" 

The declaration of the Merchant Seamen's League which rela- 
tives and friends were asked to send to men on active service, pro- 
nounced in favor of the formation of a Trades Union Political Party 
"free from Bolshevist influence" and in support of the boycott. Its 
purpose was to 

be able to announce at the Trades Union Congress at Derby, on 
September 3, the actual number of trades unionists who are utterly 
opposed to the pacifist proclivities of some of the labor leaders, and 
thus to show how little mere block votes as manipulated by such men 
really represent the true voice of labor. 

In an interview in the Times, Wilson said, "I am convinced that 
German money and influence are behind the pacific movement in 
the labor world." It was the Merchant Seamen's League, however, 
which had funds sufficient not only to send out these declarations 
by the million, but to give the luncheon at Derby in honor of 
Hughes and his apostleship of an economic war after the war — 



THE SO-CALLED SPLIT 263 

to which not only was Gompers invited, but "all the delegates to the 
conference." 

The week of the Derby Congress (September, 19 18), Havelock 
Wilson reported his tally of declarations 1 as follows: 

Votes of members of the fighting forces for a five years' 

boycott of the Germans 550,000 

Votes of members of trade unions in the fighting forces for 
a purely trade union political party 152,000 

But not only was his Caxton Hall resolution for a five-year boy- 
cott disposed of adversely, but the Ships' Stewards and Cooks (re- 
bellion below decks ! ) were there with an amendment to hamstring 
its scheme of economic exploitation of the seamen's wrongs by offer- 
ing (in line with the Inter- Allied Labour and Socialist memorandum) 
an alternative punishment to fit the crime of the U-boats. They 
proposed to delete the last paragraph of the resolution and substitute 
the following: 

This Congress therefore resolves that in case of an Allied victory 
no peace will be considered adequate unless those who are respon- 
sible for the putting into operation of the submarine warfare (which 
has resulted in the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, 
and children by the sinking of non-combatant and hospital ships) 
and those who have carried out these instructions shall be brought 
to trial, and such punishment meted out to them as they deserve. 

More, on motion of the London compositors, 2 the Derby congress 
reaffirmed its belief in free trade. Jack Jones, of the General Work- 

1 "As to Mr. Wilson and block votes, he had a letter which stated that 
at Doncaster, where Mr. Wilson's representative invited signatures to his 
boycott and trade union party proposals, forty children signed that peti- 
tion in half an hour, and another signatory was a youth well known in 
the town as an idiot. (Laughter.)" — J. H. Thomas, at Derby: from the 
London Times. 

2 "T. E. Naylor (London Compositors) moved a resolution reaffirming 
the opinion of last year's Congress, that the economic conditions created 
by the war have in no way altered the fundamental truth that free trade 
between the nations is the broadest and surest foundation for world pros- 
perity and international peace in the future, and that any departure from 
the principle of free trade in this country would be detrimental to the 
interests of the working classes, and injurious to the prosperity of the 
nation as a whole. The War Cabinet, he said, had come to a decision in 
favor of preference within the Empire. Labor must be on its guard. 'We 
have in this country,' said Mr. Naylor, 'one whom I might describe as the 
high priest of protection, Mr. W. M. Hughes. He is the guest of this 
country, and is stumping the country at our expense in support of tariffs 
and protection within the Empire. I am anxious that this Congress should 
let the Government know that we are in earnest in maintaining free trade 
not as a positive policy, but as a barrage against the raid by so-called 



264 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

ers, provoked a laugh by saying the compositors' resolution was, in 
the circumstances, like a piece of sticking plaster on a wooden leg; 
it would mean letting in the products of prison labor of Austria 
and Germany and of sweated labor the world over; but the vote 
stood 2,711,000 to 591,000. 

The "sailors' " propaganda for the 5 year (later 7 year) boycott 
on German goods was meant to alienate trade unionists from the 
war-aims memorandum with its strong positions in favor of a league 
of nations grounded in justice and economic freedom, and against any 
new economic war after the war or any throw-back to the old scheme 
of competing imperialisms. It was an effort to spike the policies of 
the British Labour Party just as the new "trade union" party was 
an attempt to scuttle the organization that had the hardihood to 
promote those policies. But, as we have seen, when it came to the 
composite peace resolution 1 at Derby (Chapter XVII), Havelock 
Wilson stood practically alone. The "new majority" had all but 
become a new unanimity. On a show of hands not ten in the entire 
assembly were raised against the resolution. J. H. Thomas, in mov- 
ing it, related it to the whole British labor procedure which for a 
full year had been under bitter assault. 

Thomas held both edges of labor's blade to the light: 

Whatever may be said about differences on the war, whatever 
fault may be found with governments or statesmen, there is no fault 
to be found with the courage and the sacrifices of our brave boys. 
(Loud cheers.) But when it appears that the dark clouds are shift- 
ing, when it appears after four years of struggle that some success 
at last is attending their efforts, do not let us make the mistake 
of tempering our war aims merely by the war map. It is useless to 
be told by our press that Germany alters her view as the war situa- 

tariff reformers, who are out for all they can get at the expense of the 
staple industries of the country. Nothing has taken place since the war 
began to cause us to change our opinion on this question.' (Cheers.)" — 
The London Times. 

1 The resolution : 

"This Congress reaffirms the Blackpool Congress resolution and calls 
for the war aims of the Labour and Socialist parties of the Central 
Powers in answer to the war aims of the Inter-Allied Conference held 
in London, which stands for the destruction of every arbitrary power any- 
where that can separately, secretly, and of its single choice disturb the 
peace of the world, or if it cannot be presently destroyed, at the least its 
reduction to virtual impotence ; and further demands that when peace is 
being discussed adequate labor representation be afforded at the peace 
conference. 

"The Congress urges the Government to establish peace negotiations 
immediately the enemy either voluntarily or by compulsion evacuates 
France and Belgium, and reaffirms its belief in the principle of the inter- 
national as the safest guarantee of the world's peace." 



THE SO-CALLED SPLIT" 265 

tion changes. If it is wrong for Germany to do that, it is equally 
wrong for us. If we are fighting, as I believe the soldiers are, for 
a great, high, and moral principle that will stamp out militarism, 
then that principle must be fought for through good or through ill 
times. Let labor boldly and definitely lay it down here that, if suc- 
cess is following the efforts of our troops, we are still fighting for 
an ideal which will not be changed by their success ; and, in the same 
way, if again we have to go through the shadow of the experiences 
of three and four years, equally will we say, "Our cause is right. 
Our aims are good," and principles must triumph in the end. 

There are a large number of people who criticize us because 
we believe in the Internationale. This resolution asks you to reaffirm 
your belief in it. My answer to those who discredit the Interna- 
tionale is this: The Internationale has not failed; it has never been 
properly tried. It is for us to see, when the war is over and peace 
again reigns, that we, the working classes of all countries, direct our 
power and influence at all times to make it impossible for a few 
people again to cause such hell and carnage as they have caused dur- 
ing the past four years. Let us therefore carry this resolution, not 
only unanimously, but with enthusiasm. Let this message go forth, 
not only to our soldiers and sailors and to our allies, but to the 
enemy as well, that British labor would not sacrifice one life to add 
a yard to the territory of the British Empire. (Cheers.) Let the 
message go forth that labor would not spend a penny to add to the 
power of Kings and Emperors. (Cheers.) But we as a movement, 
with all the experience of four years of war, are concerned to fight 
on and on until the cause of ^11 wars, which is militarism, is re- 
moved. (Cheers.) 

Let us, in this 'jubilee year of our Congress, say: "Not only is 
labor united, but on the ashes of this awful hell and slaughter we 
will build up a movement, not local, not national, but international, 
so that the workers of the world will know that the brotherhood 
of man is the best guarantee for peace." (Loud cheers.) 

On his return to America, James Wilson, chairman of the Amer- 
ican labor delegation, had said — and his prophecy was duly cabled 
to the London Times: 

We also expect that when the British Trades Union Congress 
meets in September it will resolve to strike out the resolution adopted 
in 1917, by which it was urged that conferences should be held with 
representatives from enemy countries. 

He had also expected much, it will be recalled, from the new 
trade union party. So had a company of American pro-war social- 
ists who in July were to be found addressing mass meetings in 
Trafalgar Square in company with W. A. Appleton, secretary of 
the General Federation of Trade Unions, with J. B. Williams, secre- 



266 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

tary of the Caxton Hall meeting which gave birth to the new trade 
union political movement that was to disrupt the Labour Party. 
They were members of the Social Democratic League, of which 
William English Walling is secretary, and they had posted off to 
England on the return of the American Federation of Labor dele- 
gation. Their coming to complete the job which the trade unionists 
had begun was considered so important that all question of pass- 
ports was waived by a disinterested government! 

The resolution for a trade union party came before the Derby 
Congress on motion of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, the dock 
laborers, the cardroom operators and seven other unions, whose ag- 
gregate voting power was 243,350. They secured adherents that 
brought their total to 567,000, but the project, as moved by Have- 
lock Wilson, was snowed under by a vote of 3,815,000. A sugges- 
tion that a trade union federation be formed inside the Labour Party 
was more favorably received on another division, but was nonethe- 
less voted down three to one. 

Americans are prone to forget the genius of compromise in the 
British. They march up to a crisis and then settle their differences 
and go on together. In these war years, the British Labour Party 
had been confronted by the British Workers' League, the National 
Democratic and Labour Party, the Trade Union Party, and to- 
morrow it will be some other. A few halls will be hired. A few 
elderly Tories will attend and make common cause with a knot of 
Victorian labor leaders. Then still another new political party will 
be launched, again with the same old group of jolly tars on the 
poop. Again Captain Tupper and Havelock Wilson will be hailed 
by the Morning Post as saviours of England. Again certain noble 
lords will tell us that the great heart of the British workingman is 
in the right place. If, then, Northcliffe, Hughes, Bottomley and 
Pemberton Billing will lead in the cheering, the ceremony will 
be complete. But Havelock Wilson, Seddon and Victor Fisher 
(with their various parties and more to come) will never pry Clynes, 
Ogden, Thomas, Purdy, Smillie, Robert Williams and the other 
masters of trade unionism loose from the Labour Party. And where 
coal and cotton, transport and shipbuilding are found, there too will 
be found the rest of trade unionism. Neither the head of the Musi- 
cians' Union nor Wilson and his Cossacks and commanders will 
make any permanent dent on the ranks of organized labor. 

Now the part which American labor played throughout this period 
cannot be so lightly dismissed. Professing to be at odds with trade 
union political movement at home, it mixed outrageously in British 
politics and it mixed on the side against its professions — on the side 
which was at odds with the Wilson policies of a league of nations 



THE SO-CALLED SPLIT 267 

and of economic freedom. Moreover, it ran the risk of thwarting 
the responsible labor leadership of the new majority, and of throw- 
ing the entire British movement over to the extreme left. 

SNIPING AT HENDERSON 

Throughout all this period Henderson stood up under a barrage 
from batteries trained on him from the camps not alone of Hughes 
and Havelock Wilson and the boycottists, but also from those of 
the extreme left of the British socialists, of the German government 
socialists, and of the American Alliance for Labor and Democracy 
of which Samuel Gompers is president. 

Thus Henderson's central policy for the Labour Party, with its 
new constitution, throwing the power still more to the trade unions, 
was attacked from the extreme left by Bruce Glazier in the Labour 
Leader: 

The growing Prussianism of the trade union official mind is 
seen conspicuously in the treatment of what may be termed the 
"smaller nationalities" within the affiliation. The sweeping away 
of the federal principle under which, since the foundation of the' 
party, the socialist section has been entitled to separate and dis- 
tinctive representation on the executive, is significant of the reac- 
tionary trend. Nowhere outside the German military states can be 
found a system of bureaucracy, of complicated and undemocratic 
representation of power, comparable to that embodied in the new 
constitution of the British Labour Party. 

Another portent of the situation is the duplication of official trade 
union influence by means of the joint board consultations and agree- 
ments between the Trades Union Parliamentary Committee and the 
Labour Party executive. The agreement between these two bodies 
to exclude socialist delegates, and indeed minority delegations of 
any kind, from the Stockholm and the inter-Allied conferences, is 
a sufficiently clear indication of the drift of policy in higher official 
trade union circles. 

It is true that Henderson believed that the Labour Party should 
be predominantly the expression of the trade unionists on their 
political side. The trade unionists did not reject him for this pol- 
icy. And, socialistic himself, the opposition of socialists did not 
swerve him. It is also true that he had said: 

The indispensable necessity for a league of nations is the destruc- 
tion — the complete destruction — of absolute government, with its 
Kaisers and its Tsars, to be replaced by a free democracy. 

That explains why he was hated in Germany in such quarters 
as were indicated by the London Times of June 18: 



268 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

The German "radical" press is busily representing Mr. Arthur 
Henderson as an incurable chauvinist and fire-eater, who is stub- 
bornly clinging to the Memorandum on War Aims adopted by the 
inter-Allied socialists. The Frankfurter Zeitung summarizes in this 
sense Mr. Henderson's references to the American labor delegation, 
and says : 

The war aims program which the Labor Party issued some time 
ago, and which doubtless still holds good, is in all important points 
identical with the demands of Lloyd George and of the other Entente 
statesmen. What Henderson demands is nothing else than a sub- 
jection of Germany to these demands. It needs the darkness of 
ignorance for anybody to talk in such a fashion, in view of the pres- 
ent situation, of the possibility of a peace with Germany. The oily 
and swollen phrases of Henderson, who talks as if it was for him 
to grant or refuse peace, sound like a challenge. Probably they are 
not intended to be that, but they are in comic contrast with the 
events on the world stage, and still more with the insignificant part 
which Henderson played as long as he was a member of the govern- 
ment. 

This German estimate of Henderson could only be compared 
with the estimate of him by an American radical. Under the title 
"The Kaiser's Last Hope — Arthur Henderson and Philip Scheide- 
mann," the American Alliance for Labor and Democracy sent out 
through its publicity organization an article by William English 
Walling, the opening paragraph of which follows: 

President Wilson has divided Germany's tools into two classes, 
agents and dupes. Mr. Gompers has expressed the same thought in 
referring to the conscious and the unconscious tools of Germany. 
The most valuable conscious tool of the Kaiser at the present mo- 
ment, far more valuable than Ludendorff, is Philip Scheidemann, 
the leader of Germany's Majority Socialists. By far the most val- 
uable of the Kaiser's unconscious tools or dupes is Arthur Hender- 
son, leader of the British pacifists, and formerly the leader of the 
British labor movement. 

And again in July, the Alliance sent out a broad sheet from the 
same pen under the title, "The Drive for a Teutonic Peace: Arthur 
Henderson's attempt to camouflage the Stockholm peace conspiracy," 
which began: 

The German socialist "international," together with its branches 
in Sweden, Holland and America and other countries, has decided 
to hold a pseudo "international" conference at Berne, Switzerland, 
probably in July, in order to bring an immediate end to the war— 
with little or no regard to the fate of the conquered peoples the 
Kaiser now has in his power. 



THE SO-CALLED SPLIT 269 

The pacifist fanatics of England and the defeatists of France, 
by shrewd manoeuvering have secured the support for this purpose of 
all the socialist parties of the Entente countries, including the Brit- 
ish Labour Party and the French Federation of Labor. However, 
the delegates from the American Federation of Labor on their recent 
visit to Europe put the advocates of this scheme on the defensive. 
Led by Arthur Henderson, the defeatists have devised an elaborate 
scheme of camouflage to hide the real purpose of the conference. 

But British labor knew its man. It remembered that Hender- 
son's eldest son was killed fighting at the front. It knew that his 
second son was wounded and incapacitated for front line service, 
but that he reentered service and was in charge of a department of 
supplies with the army in France. It knew that his youngest son 
was fighting. 

LABOR IN OPPOSITION 

The counterpart of such tactics was not, however, without its 
effect on the British electorate as a whole, when the elections were 
finally set between armistice and peace. The coalition, only par- 
tially successful in maneuvering an uncontested election, closed 
its campaign in violent appeals to vengeance and self-interest. Ger- 
many must be made to pay the whole cost of the war even if the 
indemnity exceeded the entire national wealth. The Labour Party 
was denounced as "tainted by pacifism, internationalism and Bol- 
shevism." 

Before picking up the threads of labor developments in the inter- 
national field throughout the fall of 19 18, that will carry our narra- 
tive to the close of the war, the outcome of the December (1918) 
elections can be summarized here briefly in relation to the political 
and industrial currents that have been traced in recent chapters. 

At a special conference in mid-November, the British Labour 
Party (after spirited debate in which, as already noted, Clynes 
led the opposition, and then resigned from the ministry and threw 
in his lot with labor) decided to break with the coalition and face 
admitted defeat at a juncture when peace was not yet secure, for 
the sake of blazing its way for independence on its own platform of 
a democratic peace and social reconstruction. 

In the landslide for Lloyd George as the triumphant war leader, 
Henderson no less than Asquith and Dillon went down; but while 
the Liberal Party was crumpled into a shell of its old self and the 
old Asquithian leaders were routed en masse, labor made gains. 
Exaggerated pre-election claims had been made by both its exuber- 
ant friends and its shrewdest enemies. The wave of nationalism, 



270 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

which swept England because of the military victory, submerged 
the labor internationalists of the extreme left, including Philip 
Snowden, Ramsay MacDonald, William C. Anderson and F. W. 
Jowett. Barnes, defeated for the labor nomination in his own 
constituency, Roberts, Havelock Wilson and others of the govern- 
ment labor following of the extreme right were swept in with the 
tide. The British Workers' League went into the lists in a new 
incarnation as the National Democratic party and its president 
won over Arthur Henderson in a three-cornered fight in East Ham. 
By funds subscribed through the Morning Post and other organs 
of privileged groups, it financed thirty candidates which deprived 
the Labour Party of a dozen or more seats. But with the whole 
force of the situation in their favor, and the whole power of the 
coalition behind them, they did not split the Labour Party and less 
than ten labor men hold coalition seats. On the other hand the 
Labour Party itself lifted its representation from thirty-five to fifty- 
nine and became for the first time in British history the largest 
independent group in Parliament and in that sense the official 
party of the opposition, around which rally all the revolts, all the 
newly forming forces of public opinion. 

But the Parliamentary showing is no measure of the Labour 
Party's strength. In an election in which only a share of the sol- 
diers were able to exercise the franchise, labor's vote was within 
one million of that cast for the Unionist Party which numerically 
controls the coalition, headed by the radical premier it had fought 
in pre-war days. The 400 coalition seats were won by four million 
votes. The Labour Party cast nearly two and one-half million in 
winning its fifty-nine seats. This is one of the most glaring anom- 
alies ;in the British system, of redistributed constituencies — that 
labor should hold but one-eighth as many seats as the coalition, 
when it polled five-eighths as many votes. 

Under such circumstances, if the labor movement comes to 
regard its political power thwarted by the election machinery, and 
finds its hopes for a reconstructed England balked by the party 
in power, it will instinctively turn to the use of industrial pressure 
by strikes and the threat of strikes. It has a century of experience 
in the use of the industrial weapon, whereas a brief term of eighteen 
years is its experience in the political field. 

Significantly, Robert Smillie was at this same juncture reelected 
to the presidency of the Miners' Federation by a three to one 
majority. And the miners insisted that hereafter he give full-time 
service in a paid job, instead, as formerly, part-time service in an 
honorary capacity. This meant that Smillie gave up his plan to 
"stand" for a Parliamentary seat at the General Election. And 



THE SO-CALLED SPLIT 271 

it meant that while the miners have the largest labor group at 
Westminster, they hold in reserve their industrial organization in 
asserting their demands for social change. By mid-winter, after 
general strikes in Glasgow and Belfast in which the shop-stewards 
figured, the Triple Alliance was to make united demands (includ- 
ing nationalization of the mines) and the government was to coun- 
ter by setting up a new inclusive joint body, representing all the 
interests in British industry. 

The leaders of the "Centre," like John Robert Clynes, of equal 
strength in the trade union movement as in the political movement, 
are desirous that the new power of labor shall exert itself through 
the established channels of government. Clynes said at the close of 
1918: 

So far as I have any authority or influence with regard to the 
working people of this country, I want to resent in the strongest 
terms the declarations now being made to invite the organized work- 
ing classes of the country to use the industrial weapon, the weapon 
of the strike, to attain their political ends. 

The masses of wage earners form the greater part of the electorate, 
and there is no economic alteration which organized workers desire, 
which they cannot obtain from the floor of the House of Commons, 
if they send their representatives there in large enough numbers. 
Labor should stand for law and order, because the time may come 
when labor may have to make the law, when labor will expect and 
call upon other sections of the community to respect the law. 

If labor expects that example to be followed, it must set it now. 

Which course — constitutional, political and economic reform or 
industrial direct action — will prevail in the counsels of labor de- 
pends on the capacity of political democracy to assert itself con- 
structively at Westminster. 

Such a conservative publicist as J. L. Garvin, editor of The 
Observer, in a pre-election statement advocating the return of 
Lloyd George, wrote: 

Either we must undertake with clear eyes and firm hands a con- 
structive revolution, not shrinking in the process from a large ex- 
tension of public control, or the general order here will be menaced. 
After the Great War and its astounding revelation of how pigmy 
were our pre-war efforts for the improvement of human life and 
happiness by comparison with the colossal ability and power since 
employed in a necessary destruction, the masses everywhere demand 
a new society. After the most frightful of wars, changing forever 
the mind and aspirations of the people, we have to transform — from 
top to bottom and throughout — the whole social and industrial or- 
ganization of Great Britain. Unless we do that a tidal wave of revo- 
lutionary feeling will sweep the polls a very few years from now. 



272 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

Henceforth Labor and Capital face each other as equal in human 
dignity and status. Labor is done for ever and for ever with the 
old relationship of 'master and man.' The workers want the profit 
of large public services on a national basis to go to public uses in- 
stead of to private pockets. After the Great War that is what they 
want. The conservative forces everywhere must willingly give more 
than they have given or seem yet prepared to give, or it will be much 
the worse for them. In this country they must face the extension of 
public control in five or six large spheres of public life. 



CHAPTER XXII 

IN franklin's footsteps 

In the course of his address at the Derby meeting of the British 
Trades Union Congress (September, 1918), Samuel Gompers swept 
away part of his notes and announced that he was "shortening his 
line on the international front." He did just that. Within the 
month he sat in at a reconvened session in London of the Inter- 
Allied Labour and Socialist Conference; and American labor struck 
hands on war aims with the Allied socialist and labor formation. 

"We of this Labor Mission," "Gompers had been quoted as 
saying at the government luncheon tendered him on his arrival 
(with Barnes in the chair, supported by three of his colleagues in 
the War Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Lord Milner and Chamber- 
lain), "have come here for the purpose of endeavoring to unite the 
workers of Great Britain, of France, and of Italy to stand together 
as one solid phalanx to make good the declaration of American 
labor." Now, unity among the workers of Great Britain and 
France, of Italy and Belgium had been achieved seven months ear- 
lier, with American labor "out of it" in the interval. And the new 
unity, to which American labor became party in the remaining two 
months of war, was not achieved by swinging them to the American 
labor position on the one question of procedure upon which it had 
kept aloof, but by recognizing the common principles which had 
animated labor's war aims on both sides of the Atlantic and upon 
which Henderson had pleaded in vain with the earlier American 
labor delegation to make public cause with them. It was not the 
one-ply military policy of the president of the American Federation 
of Labor, but the dual military-political offensive of the American 
President upon which they found common footing, or, to be specific, 
his 14 war-aims, which no sooner had been put out in January, 
19 18, than they were subscribed to as kindred to their own in a 
joint statement by Henderson for the British Labour Party and 
Bowerman for the British Trades Union Congress. 

We must go back to the days of Benjamin Franklin for a figure 
comparable to that of Samuel Gompers on his wartime mission to 
England, France and Italy. To help American readers visualize 
European labor gatherings, we have set down our impressions of 

2 73 



274 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

some of their leaders, men and women. As a matter of comity, 
the process should be reversed. Not the least graphic and appre- 
ciative of the sketches of the president of the A. F. of L. was that 
published by L 'Opinion on the occasion of his visit to Paris: — 

A stocky little man of whom one forgets the height in seeing 
only the strong and whimsical face, the big nose, big lips, a com- 
plexion colored like a sun brick, a scalp almost bare with some few 
tufts of gray hair mixed with black threads. All at once this counte- 
nance appears illuminated, animated as it is incessantly by his aston- 
ishing bright eyes in which sparkling gold and green appear. These 
changing eyes, which brighten and darken, turn themselves directly 
to you in inquiry and conquest. The first impression is one of mobil- 
ity, of force and almost as much of charm. It is one of the faces 
whose modeling and expression tempt a painter. . . . 

Samuel Gompers is not merely an orator with a magic voice. 
From the first meeting, his personality strikes you and impresses itself 
on you. Still less can we define it in a formula such as an American 
proposed to me: "He reminds me absolutely of a Scotch Calvinist 
preacher." 

We see him seated in an armchair with a big cigar in his hand 
patiently lending an ear to the questions of an interviewer. From 
politeness he has put a French rose which some one has offered him 
in his buttonhole. He listens — this orator is a singularly good lis- 
tener; he makes you repeat, put your question more precisely. He 
is in no hurry to reply; prudence is his first virtue. 

However sure his thought may be, he seeks a form that will 
express it better. He foresees and obviates any interpretation which 
will misrepresent it. He proceeds step by step. With a definite 
character, with an emphasis of the voice he impresses the idea, the 
fact to which he wishes to draw attention. His hand is nervous, 
underscored by a sober gesture. For him there is no question of 
leaving to the many chances which a lack of precision has in store 
for those who leave to developments the trouble of working out their 
precise thought. This prudence is a sort of honesty, a feeling of 
responsibility. If he measures his words it is because he knows 
that every word is an act. 

Samuel Gompers has both the inclination and the gift for action 
and, what is not always reconcilable, he is a strong man: "I am 
proud to live in an epoch in which action is everything; in which 
there is not a thought, a passing impulse but which can and must be 
translated by an act." And he adds : "I am proud to live in an 
epoch in which if the young men of 20 have the maturity of those of 
30, those of 60 have the energy of those of 40." 

Energy and vitality which abound in the man create his convic- 
tions. The conception which Gompers has of democracy is that of 
an extremely mobile society, in which liberty has the first place, in 
which liberty permits every personality to come to birth, to be 
formed, to assert itself frankly in complete freedom of movements: 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 275 

"We wish to be masters of our destinies and that every one in the 
universe shall have the possibility of living his whole life. We 
wish to have the right to make mistakes, to commit errors, provided 
that the opportunity is given us to express ourselves. This is the 
privilege of democracy." 

A strong personality, he feels no distrust for other individuali- 
ties ; on the contrary, he thinks that the desires of the masses cannot 
express themselves through persons whose action is embarrassed by 
shibboleths and traditions of party, and that their interests will be 
better defended than they are by energetic and independent men 
capable of listening to reason, but of holding their own against 
caprice. He believes that the great force operating in the world is 
that of bodies of free men animated by the same spirit, closely linked 
together by mutual esteem and sympathtic reciprocity. In accord- 
ance with certain essential principles of action, they are always 
ready to renew their agreement by amicable discussions and to recast 
every day, if necessary, their action. . . . 

Of course, not President Gompers but Colonel House would come 
to mind in pressing deeper the analogy to America's first diplomat 
of democracy. The visits of the quiet-spoken Texan to England 
and the Continent earlier in the war, his unpretentious but potent 
part in the conferences at Versailles which promoted Allied unity in 
military command and economic co-operation, in armistice and in 
peace, afford a closer parallel to the mission of the great Pennsyl- 
vanian to England before the American Revolution and to France 
while it was on. None the less, in more ways than one, Gompers 
may be said to have followed in Franklin's footsteps: his rise from 
a cigarmakers' apprentice to a foremost leader of men; his coming 
from Britain as a lad to make his way in the New World, like the 
coming of the Boston printer's boy to Philadelphia; and his pic- 
turesque claim, in his advanced years, upon the retina of the French 
capital. But it is his part in inter- Allied labor activity at the Lon- 
don Conference that concerns us here. 

Gompers' information had been of the worst from the start. The 
correspondence published in the American Federationist was pep- 
pered with the names of Havelock Wilson, Appleton, Victor Fisher 
and their like. The hand-picked British labor delegation to the 
United States in the early months of 19 18 was of a sort to amplify 
their misrepresentations. The much escorted American delegation 
which visited England in the spring was confident that the future 
of the British labor movement lay in the hands of that same crowd 
at the extreme right. With the exception of Clynes (who was listed 
in a group of officials at a dinner at the House of Commons) the 
American delegation's report did not name any of the outstanding 
leaders of the British labor majority. Barnes, Roberts, Hodges, 



276 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

"Brother" Appleton had place in their report along with Balfour, 
Beaverbrook, Milner, Churchill; it was set down how Queen Mary 
"found occasion to converse with each member of the mission"; 
how Lord Northcliffe got out of bed to "wish them a Godspeed on 
their journey home"; but so far as the great body of delegates at- 
tending the St. Paul convention of the American Federation of La- 
bor were informed, Thomas, Smillie, Henderson, Bowerman, Ogden, 
McGurk, Purdy and other chief executives of British labor might 
well have been bird fanciers or collectors of postage stamps. 

GOMPERS ARRIVES 

It was Appleton and Havelock Wilson who in July sent a mes- 
sage to Gompers to the effect that his presence in Great Britain 
would help the trade union movement and the Allied cause. And 
again, we find Appleton, Fisher, Havelock Wilson and company 
listed in the august welcoming company at the dinner at the House 
of Commons on August 30, alongside the Lord Mayor of London, 
Waldorf Astor, five peers, four members of the War Cabinet, and no 
end of Sirs. In the course of his remarks, the Prime Minister said: — 

Mr. Samuel Gompers' name is one of the few international names 
— one of the few names which is as well known in other countries 
as it is in his own. If I may say so, he is as well known as the 
Mississippi. (Laughter and cheers.) I think I may claim him to 
myself as a kindred spirit. He was one of the very few people 
who approved of me before the war (laughter), and therefore to 
me his presence here is doubly welcome. He and I have very largely 
the same ideals. We can say that we are fighting the same battle, 
and he and I, when the war came, in a true Christian spirit have 
forgiven the people who were suspicious of us (laughter), and we, 
are fully prepared to cooperate with them for the attainment of 
ideals that we have always fought for. Mr. Gompers has devoted 
his life and his great abilities to democratic progress. He is fighting 
the same battle now in the war as he was fighting before. (Cheers.) 
It is not that he has changed his mind. It is not that he has changed 
his direction. It is not that he has altered his purpose. It is not 
that he has started a new career. He is pursuing the same career 
now, he is climbing towards the same ideals, he is struggling for 
the same aims as he devoted his long and honorable career to before 
the war. (Cheers.) 

G. H. Roberts, Minister of Labour, followed with this: 

Sam has never yet received encouraging replies from enemy coun- 
tries (laughter), because the enemy knows full well that Sam Gom- 
pers represents the American people and their determination to 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 277 

have no parleying with enemy representatives until victory has been 
attained, and until their government are in a position to negotiate 
a clean and enduring peace. Sam Gompers and his colleagues more 
correctly interpret the attitude of British labor than do some of 
those who arrogate to themselves the title of labor leaders. 

Roberts went further in illuminating what the government labor 
group of the extreme right anticipated from Gompers' visit: — 

We know that the contact of our guests with patriotic labor in 
this country will help us to defeat the efforts of those who would 
trick us into meeting with enemy subjects. 

In rejoinder, Gompers said that he was 

quite willing that the so-called intellectual party and the faddists 
should enjoy themselves in the salons, leaving the others of the 
working people to work out their destinies as best they could. 

To quote the London Times: 

Mr. Gompers, replying to the toast, said that a few days before 
he left Washington to proceed to an Atlantic port to embark he had 
the honor of an interview with President Wilson. He wanted not 
only to wish the President "Au revoir," but to ask him whether he 
had something he might like him to tell the people of Great Britain, 
France, and Italy. The President, in reply, told him the story of a 
little girl about seven years of age, who was doted upon by her 
parents. On her birthday she was given a box of blocks of letters. 
The child played with them and romped until the evening, and when 
she retired to bed and went down on her knees to pray she was too 
sleepy to say what she wanted. Putting the bricks on the ground, 
she said: "Oh, God, you know what I want to say. Let me say the 
best thing you would want me to say. Good-night. Amen." And 
the President stopped there, said Mr. Gompers, "and so I have really 
no message to-day, except that I know his spirit — a man of patience, 
a man of strong conviction, of deep feeling and high ideals, and so 
I have the privilege of conveying the message of the blocks of 
bricks, metaphorically thrown upon the floor at that meeting with 
the President. I have the right to say that the President and the 
people of the United States are with Great Britain and France and 
Italy and all the Allies in this struggle to the end, and to a victorious 
end. (Cheers.) Speaking as one who in part represents the great 
masses of the workers of America, I may say that we are whole- 
heartedly in this struggle." 

Mr. Gompers proceeded to read a declaration made by the repre- 
sentatives of organized labor in America, on March 12, 1917, nearly 
a month before America's entry into the war. It was believed, he 
said, that that declaration had much influence in assuring the presi- 



278 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

dent that the toilers would stand behind him and the government in 
whatever course was taken. After laying down the fundamental 
principles of right and justice, the declaration said: — 

"We hereby pledge ourselves, in peace or in war, to stand unre- 
servedly by the standards of liberty and the safety and preservation 
of the institutions and ideals of our republic. Should our country be 
thrown into the maelstrom of a European conflict, we offer our serv- 
ices to our country in every field of activity, to defend, safeguard, 
and preserve the republic against its enemies, whosoever they may 
be, and we call upon our fellow-workers and fellow-citizens in the 
holy name of liberty, justice, freedom, and humanity devotedly and 
patriotically to give like service." 

It must not be forgotten that in the United States there were about 
12 millions of people of Teutonic extraction. That was a tre- 
mendous problem for the government. The government were not at 
first in a position to take action, but when outrages and murders 
which had been perpetrated against the allies were committed against 
their own American people, and when Americans engaged in peace- 
able pursuits were murdered in cold blood, the die was at once cast, 
the climax was reached, and the government declared that a state 
of war existed between their country and the Imperial German gov- 
ernment. It was the consciousness of the attitude of the organized 
labor movement of their country that clarified the situation, and now 
they were engaged not in a war, but in a crusade. 

SOCIALISM THE CRUX 

It was just here that Gompers announced that the purpose of his 
mission was to "unite" the Allied workers. But there were those 
who appraised that mission contrariwise. According to a cable 
from the London correspondent to the New York Tribune he was 
called upon by none of the majority leaders who, with both the 
international trade union and international socialist organizations 
disrupted by the war, had slowly built a practical unity, embracing 
both elements, on the model of the British Labour Party itself. 
For explanation we have only to turn to the report to the St. Paul 
convention by the earlier American delegation. Any allegations 
that the Inter- Allied Labour and Socialist Conference (London, 
February, 191 8) was animated by defeatist and pro-German forces 
were set aside in this first-hand American report. "With the ex- 
ception of the self-confessed pacifists," it said, "we found the Brit- 
ish representatives stoutly insisting that the Allied armies must be 
loyally sustained by the workers in industry, and the German mil- 
itary machine defeated." It found, however, 

that the leaders in Great Britain are far from unanimous upon the 
advisability of holding an international conference and that there 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 279 

also exists a divergence of opinion on the part of those who do, 
upon what it could accomplish and the conditions under which such 
a conference should be held. Many of those who believed in the 
holding of an international conference were vigorous in their belief 
that the German military machine must be defeated, their opinions 
being that such a conference would assist in bringing about this 
result through its influence upon the workers of Germany and Aus- 
tria, and the effect upon the workers in the allied countries should 
the workers of the central powers refuse to participate. 

The report indicated that back of the much discussed issue of 
an inter-belligerent conference, the American opposition was 
grounded upon the fact that the British Labour Party was socialist 
as well as trade union; and that the inter- Allied conference was like 
it. The crucial passage in the report read: 

During the conferences held in London and Paris with repre- 
sentatives of the labor movement and in private conversations with 
many of the leaders in both countries, reference was made to the 
many existing conditions which could only be adequately met through 
the reestablishing of an effective International Federation of Labour. 
In both countries it was the unanimous opinion that it should be rees- 
tablished in a neutral country. At present there exists an unfortu- 
nate dearth of official records of the several national trade union 
movements, and owing to this it has been possible for politicians 
and the partisan and general press to spread much misinformation 
among the workers relative to the attitude of trade union leaders and 
official policies. There is a crying need for a much greater interna- 
tional exchange of trade union information, experience and ideas, 
which can only be accomplished satisfactorily through a central inter- 
national trade union bureau or secretary. Such an international 
center is also most essential so that greater stability and unity of 
purpose may be established. In Great Britain and upon the European 
continent there exist to-day among the workers more or less joint 
industrial and political movements, the French workers having the 
joint committee of the Confederation Generale du Travail and the 
Socialist Party, while the British workers in their labor party include 
socialist groups, such as the Independent Labour Party, National 
Socialist Party, British Socialist Party and the Fabian Society. 
While these socialist groups work with the trade unions politically, 
they maintain their separate affiliation with the international socialist 
organization. Our European trade union brothers are the best judges 
of what their political activities should be and what affiliations, polit- 
ical or otherwise, these should include, but the existing condition 
tends nevertheless to emphasize the urgent necessity for a purely 
international trade union federation at which the industrial prob- 
lems can be given ample consideration entirely apart from any polit- 
ical movements or considerations. It is unsafe and unsound to 
passively contemplate the influences exerted upon the trade union 



2 8o THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

movement in the great industrial nations of the world by political 
leaders, however sincere they may be, whose viewpoint and expe- 
riences are those of the theorist and politician. The policies and 
programs of the workers must be formulated by the workers them- 
selves, acting through their industrial organizations, if their best 
interests are to be conserved. 

For the significance attached to this report by a newspaper cor- 
respondent in touch with the American labor delegation which made 
it, let us turn to another dispatch in the New York Tribune. The 
Tribune had taken anything but a favorable view of the British labor 
offensive. This dispatch was from St. Paul at the time of the 
A. F. of L. convention: — 

. . . The mission believes that the socialist party, which has main- 
tained some sort of international organization during the war, is 
able to dominate the purely industrial labor movement, which has 
not. To political socialism, internationally organized, it attributes 
the growth of the demand for a conference with the Germans. . . . 
The members of the mission believe that the purely industrial labor 
movement should have as close an international organization as the 
socialist political movement, in order to combat it. 

It is understood that the projected visit of Mr. Gompers to 
Europe, recommended in the closing sentence of the report, is to be 
a first step in the establishment of this international organization. 

The mission's report is extremely frank in speaking of the policies 
of European labor bodies. Contrary to published statements, given 
out when the members first landed, it shows that the majority of 
French and British labor leaders cling firmly to their demand for 
an inter-belligerent labor conference — another "Stockholm," though 
the demand is receding somewhat during the present drives on the 
western front. . . . But the indorsement by the British Labour Party 
of the famous inter-Allied statement of war aims still stands. 

A vigorous minority, however, led by Havelock Wilson, of the 
Seamen's Union, is opposing the conference and is seeking to wrest 
the labor movement in England free from socialist control. It is 
this minority, presumably, which would be made the nucleus of 
the proposed international trade union federation. . . . 

The difference between the American Federation and the British 
Labour Party is more than a difference over technique. The pro- 
posed conference, if by any chance it were instrumental in ending the 
war, might make the socialist party dominant in Europe. ...[!] 

To understand this alignment, it is necessary to recall that, while 
under Samuel Gompers' leadership the American Federation of 
Labor had discountenanced efforts to form a trade union party, 1 

1 In the course of an interview in the London Times of September n, 
Gompers described the relation of the American Federation of Labor to 
American political activity as follows: 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 281 

American socialists did not confine themselves to the political field, 
but kept up a constant boring process within the ranks of the A. F. 
of L. This found expression in the not infrequent baiting of the 

"It was a mistake to say that the American labor movement took no 
political action, but it was true to say that it held itself aloof from polit- 
ical parties. In America, the Federation of Labor yielded to no one, or 
any group of people, the right to speak in the name of labor. As a matter 
of fact, there was no political action which so far had proved so potent 
in furthering the interests of the working people as the political action 
taken by the American labor movement. When the Federation of Labor 
had declared itself on any project there was no one who undertook to 
present counter propositions or to take counter action. They had always 
taken political action as wage-earners. They presented to the political 
parties their demands and were perfectly willing that they should compete 
with each other for the support of labor at the polls. Instead of creating 
a political party, labor had adopted the policy of rewarding their friends 
and opposing their enemies. They were perfectly impartial. They made 
no promise to any political party, and were not bound by any political 
party. In 1906 they presented what they called a 'Bill of grievances' to 
the then president, vice-president, and speaker of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, and in it they incorporated eight specific grievances and de- 
mands for their rectification. They had a fight for it. One party ignored 
their demands ; the other party adopted them in full ; and nearly 7,000,000 
voters voted for the party that supported them. They succeeded in get- 
ting fourteen trade unionists elected to the House of Representatives, and 
they formed themselves into a labor group. In this way they secured not 
only remedial legislation for the evils of which they complained, but con- 
structive legislation in the interests of labor and of the people, and helped 
to liberalize the government — not in the British sense of liberalism — in its 
mentality, and soul, and activity. They secured not only relief from the 
decision of the Supreme Court in what was called the Hatters case, which 
might be regarded as on a par with the Taff Vale case, but relief from 
the Trade Union Dispute Act. In addition, there was enacted in the law 
a section the first sentence of which read : 'The labor of a human being 
is not a commodity or article of commerce.' The old political economy 
idea of property in man, property in wealth, property in land — a species of 
ownership in a man who worked for another — had been abolished so far 
as the law of the land was concerned and actions in the law courts. It 
was now laid down that the labor of a human being was inseparable from 
the human being, and must not be considered as an individual commodity 
or an article of commerce." 

Mr. Gompers' relation to British political activity was illustrated in 
the next column, where the Times carried an account of his "fight to a 
finish," "one fell blow" address at a luncheon given by the American 
Luncheon Club, at which "Mr. J. B. McAfee presided, and among those 
present were Lord Acheson, General Biddle, Vice-Admiral Sims, General 
Sir Nevil Macready, Mr. W. Brace, M. P., and Mr. Havelock Wilson." 

Following which the Times carried an appeal for funds by J. Havelock 
Wilson : 

"The General Election appears to be imminent and patriotic labor must 
mobilize for the fray. The 'Bolshie bosses' control the Labour Party ma- 
chinery and political funds. They have appealed, and are appealing, for 
funds. Patriotic labor must also appeal." 



282 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

Gompers' administration at the annual conventions by such socialist 
leaders as Victor Berger. Later, French syndicalism had its reflex 
in the I. W. W. movement under Haywood, who had been active 
in the Western Federation of Miners and was also a member of the 
Socialist Party executive. He broke with the latter, which clung 
to political action as the working class weapon, as against direct 
action and sabotage; but in his efforts to organize unskilled labor, 
which in the textile trades, for example, had been left in the lurch 
by the old-line craft unions, the I. W. W. ran afoul of the American 
Federation of Labor. When the war came, the American Socialist 
Party, with its large foreign-born element, did not recede from 
its position of direct opposition, taken at St. Louis in March, 191 7, 
before war was declared — a position analogous to that of the Inde- 
pendent Social Democrats in Germany, the Italian Official Social- 
ists, the British Socialist Party and the furthest left among the 
French, in line all of them with the historic international position 
of the socialist movement. 1 Meanwhile the I. W. W. was charged 
with fomenting strikes and encouraging war sabotage, and hundreds 
of its leaders were arrested. 2 

Thus it was that Gompers was in a fair way to consolidate his 
life-long leadership and see his inveterate antagonists cast into outer 
darkness on the patriotic issue of the war. It was as if he were 
swinging two dead cats by the tail when a new incarnation of this 
deplorable cat tribe put its head up over his back-yard fence in the 
character of the British Labour Party, which could not readily be 
damned as pro-German because it was altogether British and which 
to his mind confounded trade unionism with an obnoxious socialism 
in what it called a reconstruction program. Unrebuffed by the fail- 
ure of the American Federation of Labor to sit in at its Inter-Allied 

1 While American trade unions, such as the miners, swung service flags 
with thousands of stars at their annual conventions, the Socialist Party 
organizations, and especially its leaders of German or Austrian birth or 
descent, were under government surveillance, and its formidable munici- 
pal campaign under the Russian born leader, Morris Hillquit, in New 
York (November, 1917), had no defenders in the metropolitan press but 
the Socialist daily, the Call, itself often barred from the mails. 

2 Many were later sentenced (September, 1918) to long terms of im- 
prisonment by the Federal Court at Chicago, Haywood among them ; 
while Berger and five other Socialist Party officials were indicted in Chi- 
cago. [Convicted Jan. 8, 1918]. Eugene V. Debs, many times Socialist 
Party candidate for President, and an outspoken critic of the war as a 
struggle of competing capitalisms, was convicted in a federal court in 
Ohio under the wartime espionage act — a parallel to the Liebknecht case 
in Germany. Pro-war socialists like John Spargo and Charles Edward 
Russell, and pro-war syndicalists like Walling and Frank Bohn, early 
broke with their old associates and made common cause with the A. F. 
of L. through the American Alliance of Labor and Democracy. 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 283 

Conference, it proposed with some of its even more questionable 
confederates, to send a delegation overseas to confer with the "forces 
of American democracy" and call on the President. Small wonder 
that — to put it at its known least — the A. F. of L. made no loud 
protest at the obstacles which the British government and the Sail- 
ors' Union put in the way of the delegation's coming. And appar- 
ently so fearful were its leaders of the British virus infecting 
American trade unionists that they let the hold-up of the delegates 
from the British Trades Union Congress go by default also. 

It should be said that Gompers and the A. F. of L. had a more 
difficult problem in generating labor unity behind the war than either 
the British or the French labor leaders. It took three years for the 
British labor movement to find itself in the matter of a distinctly 
working-class foreign policy. For those three years, the question of 
America's entering the European conflict had been debated in the 
United States and labor men in various parts of the country had 
actively opposed it. Wilson had been reelected on the campaign 
cry, "He kept us out of war"; America was not invaded; the Amer- 
ican industrial centers were thronged with immigrant workers; with 
the example of the Russian revolution, insurgent movements sprang 
up in the direction of workers' councils. Outspoken espousal of 
the war — of conscription — of redoubled efforts at production — by the 
Gompers' leadership was unquestionably a very real factor in swing- 
ing industrial America into line with the national purpose when 
war was declared. 

Nonetheless, the same inhibitions and more stood in the way of 
President Wilson. He became the pioneer of the new statesmanship 
among the Allied governments, leading them, while Gompers re- 
mained the bell-wether of the rear guard in labor statesmanship, 
holding it back. 

Moreover, the opposition to the Gompers' administration in 
years past had by no means been confined to the socialists or the 
I. W. W. In a period in which the right to collective bargaining 
was not yet won, and when such strength as wage-earners could 
muster was needed for its extension in the economic field, much 
could be said for his policy of keeping clear of political action. 1 
Nobody but could respect the consummate ability with which he had 
held the conflicting racial, religious and trade groups together 
throughout the years, built up the organization and fended against 

1 The continuation of this policy in war time and reconstruction has 
been sharply challenged by the springing up of local labor parties in 
Bridgeport, Chicago, New York and elsewhere in the fall of 1918 — the 
beginnings of an insurgent political labor movement which may have 
important consequences on the future both of the A. F. of L. and the 
American Socialist Party. 



284 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

attack from within and without. To be sure, long drawn out law 
suits instigated by the bitterly anti-union National Association of 
Manufacturers, the American Anti-Boycott Association, etc., actu- 
ally made his position within the movement invulnerable. So long 
as he was under fire, with a prison sentence over his head due to 
the action of hostile employers and reactionary judges, the hands 
of those progressives within the organization were tied, who wanted 
to see a. more forward-looking policy toward the struggling women's 
labor movement, toward reforms in trade union procedure com- 
parable to the stirrings toward democracy in American political 
life, and toward advances in social legislation. The situation had 
not only played into the continuance in power of a knot of con- 
servative labor officials, but toward their gradual supplanting by 
others who lacked the old-time ardor and devotion which built up 
the organization. 

The St. Paul convention was, for example, unenthusiastic and 
thoroughly domesticated. "The American working people," wrote 
one of the younger labor organizers, "will have to find another lead- 
ership before idealism and vision will replace desire for cheap mon- 
etary advantage." By so much was expressed discontent with the 
failure to transmute wartime gains in labor organization and wages, 
into some constructive outgiving on war aims or social reconstruc- 
tion. By so much was expressed disillusionment with a leadership 
which had had only exasperation for the excesses of the Russian 
Revolution, — which had sought unity at home not by a social ap- 
peal, broad and affirmative enough to sweep in the whole gamut of 
working-class aspiration, but by the downing of old non-conformi- 
ties, — which had found kinship in time-serving factions abroad 
whose first concern in the peace was their narrow self-interests. It 
had let suspicion and partisanship stand between American labor 
and the great Allied labor and socialist bodies in their strivings to 
the end that peace should not be needlessly deferred for selfish 
advantage, to the end that when peace came it should not be in the 
terminology and spirit of the old settlements which had strapped 
dynastic establishments and competitive armaments on the backs 
of the workers. 



GOMPERS SITS IN WITH ALLIED SOCIALISTS 

A distinctive thing in the Allied labor developments reviewed in 
this book was that just as, at the outset of the war, labor and cap- 
ital buried their feuds for the sake of united effort in prosecuting 
the war, so now socialists, syndicalists and trade unionists buried 
their feuds in the interests of a united working class front on war 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 285 

aims and procedure. Apparently the returning American mission 
was so fearsome of socialist dominance after the war that it wanted 
American labor to balk this unity and reopen and broaden the 
cleavages among Allied groups while the war was on. Gompers, 
for the sake of advantage over the socialists after the war, was to 
lend himself to smashing this unity which had done more than any ' 
one thing to keep the Allied working classes firm in resistance to 
Prussian militarism through the gruelling months of its last great 
drives. 

Whether or not the conception of a joint labor and socialist 
international, transcending the separate pre-war bodies, and uniting 
the workers of the world for industrial democracy, persists over 
the separatist tendencies in after-the-war years, is for the future 
to decide. 1 But its dual program of military and moral offensive, 
its vision of a workers' peace, held while the war was on. The 
forces for coherence were too strong for dismemberment under the 
guise of a lesser unity. Once on the ground at Derby, among the 
trade unionists of all England, Gompers got at the truth of the 
situation and adjusted himself to it. He may have seen that the 
unity he was booked to destroy was all too precious to destroy. He 
at least saw that it was proof against disruption. 

Two quotations will give the thing in a nutshell. The first is 
from the anti-administration English Nation: 

The event of greatest importance at the congress was the speech 
of Mr. Samuel Gompers as fraternal delegate from the American 
Federation of Labor. Mr. Gompers' coming had been loudly her- 
alded in the jingo press; we had been told again and again that he 
had come post-haste from the United States in order to give Mr. 
Henderson and his friends a trouncing; and all the "intransigeant" 
labor leaders had gone wild with delight at his coming. It is too 
soon yet to say that their expectations have been disappointed; but 
it is at least very clear that Mr. Gompers means to feel his way 
warily. . . . The truth is, of course, that in America Mr. Gompers 
had been regularly fed with lies about the labor movement in this 
country. Probably he arrived in this country under the impression, 
which is so sedulously fostered by the enemies of labor, that a few 
wire-pullers had captured the official organization of the Labour 
Party, and that, at a word from his magic voice, the trade unions 
would flock to the standard of Mr. Appleton, Mr. Havelock Wilson, 
and, incidentally, Mr. Lloyd George. If so, his first day's experience 
at congress, before he was called upon to speak, must have given 

1 The first test came in the International Labor and Socialist Con- 
ference convened as result of the labors of Huysmans and Henderson, 
at Berne in mid- February, 1919. (Simultaneously an international trade 
union congress was held there.) Ninety elected delegates from 25 na- 
tionalities were represented ; and labor achieved its long advocated work- 
ing-class gathering concurrent with the Peace Conference at Versailles. 



286 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

him a rapid awakening; for he could hardly have helped realizing 
that the preponderant feeling at congress was decisively for the 
Labour Party and against Mr. Havelock Wilson and his friends. His 
experiences at Derby may have done Mr. Gompers a world of 
good. . . . 

The second is from the pro-administration London Times: 

Mr. Gompers telegraphed in identical terms on August 7 to Mr. 
Appleton, M. Jouhaux (secretary of the Confederation Generale du 
Travail and head of the International Trade Union Secretariat), 
and to Mr. C. W. Bowerman, M.P. (secretary of the Parliamentary 
Committee of the Trades Union Congress), stating that if an inter- 
allied conference of bona-fide labor representatives were convened 
in London about September 17, he and other delegates from the 
American Federation of Labor would attend. Mr. Appleton and 
M. Jouhaux thereupon began to make preparations for an Inter- 
Allied Trade Union Conference in Paris next week. Simultaneously, 
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Henderson, and the other members of the 
Joint Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the Labour 
Party, arranged for an Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conference 
to be held in London on September 17, 18, and 19. Mr. Gompers 
was notified of these arrangements, and replied that the Federation 
delegates would attend the London meeting. 

Before he left America Mr. Gompers denied a report that he 
was going to a joint labor and socialist conference. Socialism, he 
said, would have no place in the deliberations of the American dele- 
gates. We have, therefore, a situation in which Mr. Gompers and 
his colleagues have committed themselves, in spite of this denial, to 
participation in a conference which will be at least as representa- 
tive of socialism as of bona-fide trade unionism. Mr. Gompers, no 
doubt, was conscious of the somewhat anomalous position in which 
he found himself when he met the Joint Committee of the Trades 
Union Congress (a purely trade union body), and the Labour Party 
(a mixture of socialist and trade union organizations) at a private 
meeting in Derby last week. This may explain a certain lack of 
incisiveness and confidence which was noticeable in his address to 
the Congress. 

British, French, Italian, Belgian, Serbian, American and Greek 
delegates were in attendance at the Inter-Allied Labour and Social- 
ist Conference, 1 which opened September 18, 19 18, with G. H. 

1 In response to a request from Gompers, a statement was issued show- 
ing the composition of the Conference to be as follows: 

Great Britain. — Labour Party (2,500,000 members), 24 delegates. 
Trades Union Congress (4,130,000 members), 18 delegates. 

France. — Socialist Party (70,000 members, 100 Parliamentary deputies 
out of 600; 1,500,000 votes at 1914 election), six delegates. Confederation 
Generale du Travail (800,000 members), six delegates. 

Italy. — Socialist Union (12,000 members), three delegates. Union of 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 287 

Stuart-Bunning, the newly elected chairman of the Parliamentary 
Committee of the Trades Union Congress, presiding. Stuart-Bun- 
ning is secretary of the Postmen's Federation and one of the dele- 
gates from the February conference whose sailing to America to 
"confer with the forces of democracy" was frustrated. What his 
undelivered message would have been was indicated by a passage 
in his opening address, in which he espoused a League of Nations 
and paid respect to the American President, who, with his colleagues, 

had brought into our international affairs a new life, a new breath 
of humanity, one of those breaths which vivify all that we do and 
which give us some hope for the regeneration of the world. 

Labor (160,000 members), one delegate. Irredentist Social Democrats, 
five consultative delegates. 

Belgium. — Socialist Party (350,000 members), six delegates. Union of 
Workers in France, two delegates. 

United States. — Federation of Labor (3,006,000 members), five dele- 
gates. 

Canada. — Trades and Labour Congress, one delegate. 

Greece. — General Labor Federation of Piraeus (60,000 members), one 
delegate. 

Serbia. — Socialist Party (25,000 members), one delegate. 

Rumania. — National Committee, two consultative delegates. 

Russia. — Social Revolutionary Party, four consultative delegates (ab- 
sent). Social Democratic Party, one consultative delegate (absent). 

Total, 74 full delegates and 12 consultative delegates (five absent). 

As the five delegates from the Democrazia Sociale Irredenta repre- 
sented a section which since the war had been identified with the Allies, 
but were normally Austrian subjects, they were admitted as consultative 
delegates. In a sense they were an extreme manifestation of that distinc- 
tion between peoples and governments which was the basis of Allied 
labour's willingness to go into a consultative conference. Incidentally, to 
this limited extent, the American delegates were sitting in with "enemy 
labor" ! The classing with them of the Russian Social Revolutionary 
Party delegates (who had been delayed en route) provoked much discus- 
sion, hanging on whether Russia was or was not still one of the Allies. 
Kerensky was admitted as a "guest." The difficulties of reconciling the 
extremes of the working class movement were illustrated by the absence 
of the Official Socialist Party of Italy, which thus registered its opinion 
of a conference to which the American Federation of Labor was admitted 
and the American Socialist Party excluded. The stand-off attitude of the 
A. F. of L. since the February meeting was thus matched by that of the 
far left. Nor were the Italians alone. Both French sections, trade union 
as well as socialist, placed on record their regret that the American So- 
cialist Party was not invited, and Jean Longuet held that its votes "should 
not be given to the American Federation of Labor." This brought the 
retort from Gompers : "The American Federation of Labor represents 
the American labor movement, and yields not an inch to any other body, 
no matter under what name they may sail. The American Federation 
of Labor in itself is an affiliation of the trade union movement with more 
than three millions of members, wage-earners, and none but wage-earners. 
It is the working-class movement of America." 



288 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

It was the duty of labor, he said, to explore any and every pos- 
sible avenue to an honorable and lasting peace, and went on: — 

Accusations have been made against the promoters of the docu- 
ment known as the war aims memorandum that they were defeatists. 
Such accusations could only be made either out of crass ignorance 
or sheer malevolence, because the most cursory examination of that 
document will show that conditions are laid down with which the 
Central Powers must comply, and unless they do comply we are 
willing to go on fighting to the bitter end. 

On behalf of the committee on procedure (Sidney Webb report- 
ing), first place in the proceedings of the conference was given to 
the proposals of the American delegates. 

With C. L. Baine of the A. F. of L. in the chair, the American 
labor statement was put before the conference at its second session: 

We recognize in this world war the inevitable conflict between 
autocratic and democratic institutions: the contest between the prin- 
ciples of self-development through free institutions and that of arbi- 
trary control of government by groups or individuals for selfish ends. 
It is therefore essential that the peoples and the governments of all 
countries should have a full and definite knowledge of the spirit and 
determination of this inter-Allied conference, representative of the 
workers of our respective countries, with reference to the prosecu- 
tion of the war. 

We declare it to be our unqualified determination to do all that 
lies within our power to assist our allied countries in the marshal- 
ing of all of their resources to the end that the armed forces of 
the Central Powers may be driven from the soil of the nations 
which they have invaded and now occupy; and, furthermore, that 
these armed forces shall be opposed so long as they carry out the 
orders or respond to the control of the militaristic autocratic gov- 
ernments of the Central Powers which now threaten the existence 
of all self-governing people. 

This conference endorses the 14 points laid down by President 
Wilson as conditions upon which peace between the belligerent na- 
tions may be established and maintained. 

The statement set out the 14 points, and continued: 

The world is requiring tremendous sacrifices of all the peoples. 
Because of their response in defense of principles of freedom the 
peoples have earned the right to wipe out all vestiges of the old idea 
that the government belongs to or constitutes a "governing class." 
In determining issues that will vitally affect the lives and welfare 
of millions of wage-earners justice requires that they should have 
direct representation in the agencies authorized to make such de- 
cisions. We therefore declare that — 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 289 

In the official delegations from each of the belligerent countries 

which will formulate the peace treaty the workers should have direct 

official representation. 

We declare in favor of a World Labor Congress to be held at 

the same time and place as the Peace Conference that will formulate 

the peace treaty closing the war. 

We declare that the following essentially fundamental principles 

must underlie the peace treaty: — 

A league of the free peoples of the world in a common covenant 
for genuine and practical cooperation to secure justice and there- 
fore peace in relations between nations. 

No political or economic restrictions meant to benefit some nations 
and to cripple or embarrass others. 

No indemnities or reprisals based upon vindictive purposes, or delib- 
erate desire to injure, but to right manifest wrongs. 

Recognition of the rights of small nations and of the principle "No 
people must be forced under sovereignty under which it does not 
wish to live." 

No territorial changes or adjustment of power except in furtherance 
of the welfare of the peoples affected and in furtherance of world 
peace. 
In addition to these basic principles there should be incorporated 

in the treaty which shall constitute the guide of nations in the new 

period and conditions into which we enter at the close of the war, 

the following declarations fundamental to the best interests of all 

nations and of vital importance to wage-earners : — 

That in law and in practice the principle shall be recognized that 
the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of com- 
merce. 

Involuntary servitude shall not exist except as a punishment for 
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. 

The right of free association, free assemblage, free speech, and free 
press shall not be abridged. 

That the seamen of the merchant marine shall be guaranteed the 
right of leaving their vessels when the same are in safe harbor. 

No article or commodity shall be shipped or delivered in interna- 
tional commerce in the production of which children under the 
age of 16 years have been employed or permitted to work. 

It shall be declared that the basic workday in industry and commerce 
shall not exceed eight hours per day. 

Trial by jury should be established. 



THE INTER-BELLIGERENT ISSUE 

The week before the conference, Gompers had stated in a public 
interview that there had been no recession from the position taken 
by the American Federation of Labor; it was as much committed as 



2Q0 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

he was "not to meet the representatives of enemy countries 1 until 
the war had been won and that applies whether the meeting is at 
Stockholm, Berne, or Timbuctoo." It will be seen that none of 
these interesting geographical localities was referred to in the Amer- 
ican statement which made no mention of an inter-belligerent war- 
time labor conference. 

By apparently an amicable division of labor, that topic was left 
to the British delegation which presented a joint report of the 
Labour Party executive and the Parliamentary Committee of the 
Trades Union Congress, reviewing the replies which had been re- 
ceived to date from labor groups in the Central Empires. The fail- 
ure of the German Majority Socialists to accept the London pro- 
posals as basis for discussion, or even the proposals which the Stock- 
holm neutral committee had put out a year before, had created, said 
the report, "an obstacle to the holding of an international confer- 
ence." 

Both statements were referred to a committee on war aims. The 
inter-belligerent conference, not at this time a matter for immediate 
decision, was clearly not to stand in the way of unanimity on the 
great democratic issues imbedded in the war aims or on those two 
elements in procedure — labor representation at the peace settlement 
and a concurrent labor conference — which had been proposed by the 
American Federation of Labor in the earlier years of the war and 
had been accepted by the Allied labor and socialist bodies at London 
in February, 19 18. 

But it must not be presumed that the inter-belligerent conference 
project was therefore abandoned. Quite the contrary, in spite of 
the mortuarial anticipations of the British right. The labor cor- 
respondent of the London Times, writing the day before the confer- 
ence opened, had visualized Gompers as chief undertaker: — 

The American Federation, which stands for 3,500,000 trade union- 
ists, will have nothing to do with any conference at which German 
Socialists are present until either they have freed themselves from 
the Kaiser's vassalage, or Kaiserism has been destroyed by the mil- 
itary power of the allies. That resolve, it can be stated, is shared 
• • • [by] • • • such men as Mr. Will Thorne, M.P., Mr. J. Sexton, 
Mr. Havelock Wilson, Mr. T. Richards, M. P., and other trade union- 
ists, who will be present as members of the Parliamentary Committee 
of the Congress or of the Labour Party Executive. . . . Between 
these leaders and the American delegates there is little or no gap. 

But there will be other parties represented at the conference who 
have nothing in common with American labor, [who] . . . will con- 

1 Enemy labor ( ?) : it was apparently part of the tactics of the opposi- 
tion to blur the distinction in the public mind. 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 291 

front Mr. Gompers. They stand for "peace by negotiation," and they 
are ready to begin the negotiation at once. . . . "Stockholm" was 
never more remote than it is to-day, even without the intervention of 
American labor. But to-morrow, when Mr. Gompers and his com- 
rades have thrown the full weight of their Federation against the 
project, it will be still more remote, for an International Socialist 
Congress from which American labor was absent would be utterly 
futile. . . . 

The Times correspondent, after the manner of most of the press 
on both side of the Atlantic, was focusing attention on the extreme 
right and the extreme left in the labor movement and utterly disre- 
garding the consistent course held to by the British majority (to 
the left of center) and held to by the great body of the Allied labor 
leadership. Two days later, in the midst of a debate which the 
Times correspondent thought was not so much a memorial service 
as an "Irish wake," J. Sexton (right) offered a resolution which was 
read by Henderson and translated to the amusement of the foreign 
delegates: 

That this conference, recognizing that the Kaiser and his ad- 
visers were initially responsible for the present world-war, and the 
devastation, ruthless murders, and infamous inhumanity practiced 
by Germany, insists that there shall be no peace or even talk of 
peace until the Kaiser and his associates and all who agree with him 
are hanged from the lamp-post without judge or jury. 

Sexton meant his resolution as a satire on the catholicity of the con- 
ference in entertaining resolutions from individual delegates (which 
the extreme left had taken advantage of for publicity purposes), but 
he was unwittingly reducing to an absurdity the position of the 
extreme right. 

The extreme left was prepared to go into conference with Ger- 
man and Austrian labor and socialist groups without preliminaries, 
in the belief that the very differences which separated them were due 
to isolation across the iron walls of the war, that to meet was the 
way to clear these up, and that to delay was to play into the hands 
of capitalistic forces on both sides which wanted a peace of conquest. 
Had the rank and file of Allied labor become convinced that the 
deliberate procedure of the majority group was to be indefinitely 
thwarted by hostile government forces, there was likelihood that the 
left would take the bit in its teeth. It is not unthinkable that the 
British government recognized this, and called Gompers off from 
swinging the movement too far to the left in a mistaken notion that 
he could down Henderson and swing it back to the right. 

The extreme right, on the other hand, and with it American 



292 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

labor, persisted in setting up hurdles like Sexton's lamp-post in the 
way of a meeting of workers' representatives on neutral soil, demand- 
ing that the German armies must first be withdrawn and the Im- 
perial government overthrown. 

The British majority, now no less than in those first months 
described in earlier chapters, recognized that as a practical matter 
the control of the invading armies was in the hands of the German 
general staff. They still held that, while the Allied armies kept ham- 
mering at the Western front, an inter-belligerent labor conference — 
which would clear up any overhanging misapprehensions and would 
carry conviction as to their own determination to curb any counter 
schemes of conquest — might give the German working class the lev- 
erage it needed to topple over the Pan-Germanic regime. And they 
still put as prerequisite, a convincing acceptance of the basic demo- 
cratic principles at stake, not by the German authorities but by 
the German working class organizations. They were as clearly set 
as President Wilson against a peace "obtained by any kind of com- 
promise or abatement of the principles we have avowed as the prin- 
ciples for which we are fighting." And in this their procedure was 
not at variance with the prime distinction made by the American 
President when that week he promptly turned down the Austrian 
peace note suggesting a secret conference (without a preliminary 
show of hands) and when, a short month later, he transmitted the 
subsequent German offer which accepted his basic 14 points. 

The British and Allied majority held to their even course at this 
September conference in spite of tugging from the two extremes. 
The first cleavages came not over general war aims or procedure but 
on the choice between enunciating distinct labor policies toward cur- 
rent issues in foreign affairs or accepting government policies whole. 
This was on the third day of the conference, when the American 
labor leaders sat under the chairmanship of another of the inter- 
Allied delegates, the frustration of whose trip to America had gone 
unprotested by the A. F. of L. — Cachin, a moderate of the French 
Socialist Party. 

One occasion was a resolution on the Austrian note which Gom- 
pers regarded as critical of the British government. While voting 
for it, he protested against indirect reflections on any of the Allied 
governments. He lamented the difficulty of getting the American 
labor point of view before the attention of their fellow workers in 
other countries, but added: — "We are behind our government 100 
per cent, and behind the Allies whatever may betide." Thomas of 
France (himself a former member of ministries) whimsically re- 
joined that "it was an old habit and perhaps not a bad one, of the 
socialists of Western Europe to give their governments hints and 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 293 

pushes now and then." While making a great point of getting Allied 
labor to subscribe to Wilson's 14 points, the American labor leader 
had placed himself in the position of resisting the efforts of Allied 
labor to bring their own governments publicly into line with the 
American President on those same points. 1 



LABOR AND THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 

The issue next to come up was a resolution on Russia which 
bore the signatures of Huysmans and Vandervelde (Belgium), Lon- 
guet and Renaudel (France), Henderson and J. Hill (Great Britain), 
Rossoni and Rosetti (Italy), and Popovitch (Serbia): — 

(1) This conference sends an expression of deepest sympathy 
to the labor and socialist organizations of Russia, which, after having 
destroyed their own Imperialism, continue an unremitting struggle 
against German Imperialism. 

(2) It declares that if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk stands, it 
would confirm the collapse of the Russian Revolution, and would 
most gravely compromise the future of the democracy of the world. 
It invites the workers of the allied countries to refuse to recognize 
any peace settlement which does not secure the complete freedom of 
the Russian people. 

(3) On the other hand, it puts the workers of the allied countries 
on their guard against the tremendous dangers of a policy of inter- 
vention in Russia which, instead of supporting the efforts of demo- 
cratic Russia, should favor the reactionary tendencies that aim at the 
reestablishment of the monarchy, and even, under the pretext of 
fighting Bolshevism, should serve the reaction against Socialism and 
Democracy. It declares in advance that to such a policy the work- 
ing classes of the Western democracies would have the elementary 
duty of offering opposition without stint. 

There was a minority resolution, bearing the signatures of Baine 
and Wallace (America), which was identical with the majority 
proposal as to the first two paragraphs, but differed from it in the 
third, which ran as follows: — 

(3) It is of opinion that the Allied governments should make very 
explicit pronouncements to the peoples of Russia to the effect that 
armed intervention is taking place with the hope of counteracting the 
sinister influence of the Central Powers upon the so-called Bolshevist 
Government, which has suppressed the utterances and the aspirations 
of the great majority of the Russian working classes; and that no 
military successes whatever shall be made the excuse for arresting 

1 See page 321. 



294 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

the march of the peoples of Russia towards true democracy. It looks 
to the Allied Governments to give tangible proof of the sincerity of 
such declarations by their actions in the occupied districts of Russia. 

Henderson, in moving the majority resolution, said there was a 
feeling in the committee that they had not sufficient evidence to 
justify an emphatic declaration either for or against the present 
intervention by the Allied Governments in Russia. They therefore 
merely warned the workers of the Allied countries against what 
might be the consequences of that intervention. 

Jean Longuet said the majority of the French Socialist Party and 
part of the delegation from the Confederation Generate du Travail 
had abandoned their own resolution (a resolution of unqualified con- 
demnation of Allied intervention) and supported the majority reso- 
lution now submitted, which was originally presented by M. Vander- 
velde. They supported it, however, because they understood that 
it expressed sympathy with all the socialist and revolutionary parties 
in Russia, including the Bolshevists, who, he said, had only ac- 
cepted the abominable Brest-Litovsk Treaty because they were com- 
pelled by force of arms. They supported the resolution also because 
they considered that the Allied intervention was contrary to the prin- 
ciples of international socialism and to the claim that peoples should 
determine their own future. Vandervelde, on the other hand, as- 
serted that if Longuet's interpretation held, he would be compelled 
to abandon his own text, and adopt that of the American delegation. 

Eventually resolutions and amendments were referred back to 
the committee, but first the conference agreed that Kerensky should 
be heard. Here again we can quote from the extended report of his 
speech in the London Times: 

"The part which Russia has played in the common cause of our 
alliance can never be struck out of the general balance-sheet of 
national sacrifices. In the first years of the war, when the British 
Empire was still organizing its army, the Russian army stood between 
Europe and collapse, sacrificing millions of its best men. Revolu- 
tionary Russia, so despised at this moment by the victorious Govern- 
ments, concentrated on its front during the summer of last year the 
largest number of German troops that had been there from the begin- 
ning of the war. This effort of revolutionary Russia allowed the 
United States, which entered the war after the Russian revolution, to 
get ready for the combat to such an extent that all the calculations 
of the German General Staff were overthrown. The basis of the 
Allied victory has been watered with Russian blood too abundantly 
for any one to entertain the idea, not very generous anyhow, of 
profiting by the crime of the Bolshevists against Russia, to the detri- 
ment of the interests of Russia. . . . 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 295 

"Under new forms the war, the unorganized struggle of the 
Russian people against the implacable enemy, has been continued 
without ceasing. You Westerners only hear distant echoes of this 
violent struggle, such as the news of the peasant rising in the 
Ukraine, of the heroic attempt on the life of the Ambassador of 
Germany, and of the revolts in Moscow and Petrograd. What you 
remain ignorant of is the enormous work of organization which was 
accomplished by the Russian democracy — socialists, Liberal parties, 
intellectuals, officers, and, above all, working-class and peasant organ- 
izations — amid the terrible conditions of the Bolshevist regime. To- 
day you are beginning to see the result of this long work. . . ." 

After repudiating the suggestion in the resolution originally put 
forward by Longuet, and now abandoned, that the allied intervention 
had been called for by the capitalist bourgeoisie of Russia, and 
observing that it was hypocrisy for the Socialists of a country whose 
territory was being defended by armies from five different countries 
to protest against sending military aid to any other country, Kerensky 
declared that the Union for the Regeneration of Russia — a coalition 
of the democratic and Liberal parties in Russia — could not have 
refrained from taking the responsibility of calling in the aid of allied 
troops. The Union, he said, was seeking to restore the Russian front, 
and also to restore the Russian State as a single State with a central 
power. . . . 

The tone of alarm in the resolution before the Conference cor- 
responded exactly with the truth. The danger was to be found in 
the tendency of certain men of great influence in the governments 
to maintain in Russia certain isolated persons and private organiza- 
tions which desired to seize power in Russia by the Bolshevist method 
of violence. While a kind of anti-democratic government might 
succeed for a time in Russia, with the help of foreign military force, 
it could only be maintained as the Bolshevist tyranny was maintained 
— by bayonet. The representatives of the Allies in Russia ought 
to receive a categorical instruction from their Governments to give 
up every kind of political relation with separate people and private 
organizations and to act strictly in accord with the existing demo- 
cratic governments to which he had referred. "I was," added M. 
Kerensky, "and I remain, in favor of intervention, because I am 
persuaded that the democratic forces of the allies must come to the 
aid of the democratic forces of the Russian people in order to insure 
their safety." (Cheers.) 

The following morning, Henderson reported for the committee 
on the international situation, repeating the first two paragraphs of 
the Russian resolution and substituting a third to take the place of 
the conflicting proposals submitted the previous day: 

(3) The conference is of opinion that, in conformity with Article 
6 of the "14 points" of President Wilson, the present effort of the 
Allied governments to assist the Russian people must be influenced 



296 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

only by a genuine desire to preserve liberty and democracy in an 
ordered and durable world-peace, by which the beneficent fruits of 
the revolution shall be made permanently secure. 

SQUELCHING THE EXTREME LEFT 

The new paragraph was adopted by a large majority, the debate 
being closed over the protest of Longuet, Mrs. Philip Snowden and 
others of the British left. 1 The conference referred to its perma- 
nent bureau the cabled appeal of the Russian Social Revolutionary 
Party for a committee of Allied socialists to visit Russia and bear 
witness to the situation. 

There followed a statement from the conference's War Aims 
Committee which was in a sense a merger of the declarations made 
on the opening day by the American and British delegations. The 
three first paragraphs, as moved by J. P. Frey [A. F. of L.] pro- 
voked a clash between the two extremes. They read: 

The conference welcomes the participation of the American Fed- 
eration of Labor, and recognizes, in agreement with the Federation, 
in this world-war a conflict between autocratic and democratic insti- 
tutions, a contest between the opportunities of self -development from 
free institutions and that of arbitrary control of government by 
groups or individuals for selfish ends. 

The conference agrees that after four years of war it is essential 
that the peoples and the governments of all countries should have 
a full and definite knowledge of the spirit and determination of this 
Inter-Allied Conference, representative of the workers of the re- 
spective countries, with reference to the prosecution of the war. 

In accordance with the declaration of the previous conference 
of February, 1918, the conference declares it to be its unqualified 
determination to do all that lies in its power to assist the allied 
countries in the marshaling of all their resources to the end that 
the armed forces of the Central Powers may be driven off the soils 
of the nations which they have invaded and now occupy, and, fur- 
thermore, that these armed forces shall be opposed so long as they 
carry out the orders or respond to the control of the militaristic and 
autocratic governments of the Central Powers, which now threaten 
the existence of all self-governing peoples. 

J. W. Kneeshaw, an I.L.P. member of the British Labour Party 
executive, denied that the war was a fight between autocracy and 

1 With the close of hostilities in the West, the British Labour Party in 
November, 1918, in a pre-election manifesto warned "the coalition govern- 
ment against opposing the new European democracies" and demanded 
"the immediate withdrawal of Allied forces from Russia." By the end 
of the year (1918) the full weight of British labor agitation was directed 
toward this end. 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 297 

democracy. 1 The British people were told in 19 14 that they went 
into the war to defend Belgium against German aggression, and for 
four years they had supported the war in that belief. But, he 
charged that on August 5, 1918, for the first time Lloyd George de- 
clared in the House of Commons that Britain went to war because 
of a secret compact with France. "Even now," said Kneeshaw, 

we do not know what the war is about. You say the Central Powers 
must withdraw from occupied territories, but surely it is equally 
wicked for us to occupy Persia, Mesopotamia, and other territories. 
You call on the German armies to cease to obey orders. That condi- 
tion would lead to an indefinite prolongation of the war. As a matter 
of fact, the secret treaties make it quite clear that the purpose of the 
Allied governments in the war is precisely the same in character as 
the purpose of the governments of Central Powers — to secure an 
extension of imperialistic power. 

J. Maxton, a fellow member of the I.L.P. on the Labour Party 
executive, supported him and charged 

the American delegation with being two and a half years late in 
fighting for their principles, and reminded them that, for all their 
boasted free institutions, Comrades Debs and Mooney were now in 
American jails. 

In reply, Frey warmly defended the belief of American labor that 
the allies were fighting for democracy against autocracy, and Gom- 
pers, who is an old hand at heckling debate, also had back at Knee- 
shaw and Maxton. To quote the London Times: 

These ultra-goody-goody men, I trust them not. (Cheers and 
laughter.) The American Federation, Mr. Gompers went on, had 
asked for a new trial for Mooney, who was charged with killing 22 
people by a bomb, but they had no sympathy for Debs and his asso- 
ciates, who conspired to thwart the American war effort. It was 
absurd to say that there was no difference between the democratic 
institutions of the Allies and the German rule. 

Mr. Kneeshaw: — I did not say the words you are now putting 
into my mouth. 

Mr. Gompers retorted: — Believe me, if it were in my power, I 
would not put "words" into the delegate's mouth. (Some laughter.) 
I wonder what the consequence would be to the democracies of Great 
Britain, France, and the United States if it were possible for Ger- 
many to win the war. (Cheers.) . . . We of the American labor 

1 "Yet this war with its terrific toll of human lives is the product of 
artificial conditions and policies and is repugnant to the thought and 
political progress of the age. . . ." From the report of the Executive 
Council, American Federation of Labor, Philadelphia, Nov. 9-21, 1914. 



298 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

movement have the direct mandate of our people, and we are going 
through. (Cheers.) 

J. Sexton (right) of the British Trades Union Congress de- 
nounced Kneeshaw's speech as "treacherous" and declared that it 

was the essence of hypocrisy for a member of the party which pro- 
moted the Leeds convention for the establishment of Soviets in Eng- 
land to object to a suggestion that German soldiers should rebel 
against their Government. 

But the majority leaders had not left it to the American delegation, 
or to the British right to deal with this outburst from the left. 
Sidney Webb assured the conference that the majority of the Brit- 
ish delegation were in absolute disagreement with almost everything 
that Kneeshaw said. J. H. Thomas declared that whatever might 
be said about governments, the government of Great Britain was 
the reflex of the intelligence of the people; and that was not the case 
in Germany. "The fact that we were not prepared for war proved 
that our intentions were not those of Germany." Nor were the 
British alone. Albert Thomas of the French Socialist Party said 
that 

whatever documents had been published in the last four years, the 
French workers still found intact the justification of their fight for 
justice, independence, and freedom. 

Remembering the deep anxiety which was felt at the time by the 
French Government and people when they thought there was no 
support coming to them, and reading the documents which had since 
been published, he would assert without hesitation that until Great 
Britain actually entered the war there was no promise whatever 
that she would take sides. It was only after the invasion of Belgium 
had begun that the British Government made up their minds to 
enter the struggle. 

It is one of the principles of the British labor movement not to 
sacrifice unity for uniformity. It goes with the Englishman's instinct 
for personal liberty. To those whose test of British labor sentiment 
would lie in an owlish conformity by a row of delegates, the incident 
might have been an exhibit of hopeless discord. Rather, it revealed 
the reserve powers for coherence among free men. 

The British labor men were not so naive as the Americans about 
the fundamental economic and nationalistic factors that entered into 
the war. They could see the woods of modern Europe — and could 
subscribe to the war as one of "free institutions" against "the arbi- 
trary control of government by groups or individuals for selfish 
ends"; but they also knew the trees of modern Europe, and the 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 299 

whole challenge of their labor offensive was to see to it that the 
war, in the self-controlled terms of its settlement, should ring true 
to the aspiration of the common men who were fighting it. 

The third paragraph of the three quoted — made much of by 
those who had from the first misconstrued the British labor offen- 
sive — was lifted all but bodily from the American statement but 
linked it properly with the Allied statements of the Februaries (1915 
and 19 18). It put the resistant edge on the Allied labor blade. 
There were two things for which British labor will fight to the last 
ditch, said J. H. Thomas to Hamilton Holt of the League to Enforce 
Peace, on a visit to England in mid-summer: one to prevent an 
imperialistic peace, the other to create a league of nations. "The 
war has lasted for four years," wrote the New Statesman in Sep- 
tember, "but the disaster of its continuation is as nothing compared 
with the disaster of ending it before its roots have been torn up and 
the objects for which we have been fighting achieved." 

But while Allied labor was prepared to do all that lay in its 
power to sustain the Allied countries in the marshaling of all their 
resources to the end of throwing back invasion and throwing over 
Prussian militarism, it did not propose to hold up its war aims 
labor offensive until these ends were secured by the military weapon. 
It proposed to use the other edge of its blade to the same ends — 
and with ever its democratic goal in view. 

On the vote, no hand was raised against the three passages: the 
I.L.P. group and their French and Serbian sympathizers of the left 
alone abstaining from voting. 

Unanimous assent was given to paragraphs endorsing the 14 
propositions of President Wilson, as in harmony with the Allied 
Labour declaration of February, 19 18; and to paragraphs endorsing 
in the main the distinctly industrial planks of the A. F. of L. state- 
ment, as again in harmony with the February memorandum. Re- 
subscription to the American proposals as to labor's participation 
at the peace settlement were combined with these matters, and this 
part of the statement as adopted read: 

The Conference further welcomes the confirmation in all essen- 
tial features which the fourteen propositions laid down by President 
Wilson, and presented to the Conference by the American Federa- 
tion of Labor, give to the proposals contained in the Memorandum 
on War Aims agreed to by the Conference of the 24th February, 
1918. The Conference accepts these fourteen propositions as a con- 
cise summary of the main principles which the Memorandum on War 
Aims expounds in detail on the various questions to be dealt with, 
and agrees that only in these principles can the groundwork for a 
lasting peace be found. 



3 oo THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

The Conference accordingly calls upon the several governments 
of the allied nations unequivocally to adopt these principles, as 
formulated by President Wilson and expounded in the Memorandum 
on War Aims, in a joint declaration of allied policy, and the Con- 
ference recommends the representative organizations of the workers 
in each country to bring pressure to bear upon the Government in 
order to induce it to adopt this course. 

The Conference once more takes note of the tremendous sacri- 
fices which the world is requiring from the mass of the people in 
each country. It declares that because of their response in defense 
of principles of freedom the peoples have earned the right to wipe 
out all vestiges of the old idea that the government belongs to or 
constitutes a "governing class." In determining issues that will 
vitally affect the lives and welfare of millions of wage-earners, jus- 
tice requires that they should have direct representation on the 
agencies authorized to make such decisions. The Conference there- 
fore declares that — 

1. In the official delegations from each of the belligerent coun- 
tries which will formulate the peace treaty the workers should have 
direct official representation. 1 

2. A world labor congress shall be held at the same time and 
place as the peace conference that will formulate the peace treaty 
closing the war.* 

The Conference further welcomes the declaration by the Amer- 
ican Federation of Labor of the fundamental principles to be included 
in the peace treaty, as being in substantial agreement with those 
applied in detail in the Memorandum on War Aims of 2oth-24th 
February appended hereto, and also with the fourteen propositions 
of President Wilson. 

The Conference further expresses its general sympathy with the 
aspirations of the American Federation of Labor. The Conference 
places special importance on the proposals which provide for an 
advanced conception of the right of the worker to complete self- 
control, and for the unabridged freedom of association and expres- 
sion. 

The Conference declares its objection to all treaties and agree- 
ments purporting to bind nations, which have been or may be con- 
cluded by their governments without immediate publicity and with- 
out Parliamentary authority or ratification; and protests against the 

1 Vandervelde (Belgium) was perhaps the only one of the Allied 
labor or socialist leaders to be included in the main official delegations 
as such; for Barnes, a member of the British delegation, had re- 
signed from the Labour Party; Bissolati (Italian Reformist) resigned 
from the Italian Cabinet as a protest against its failure to renounce the 
secret treaties ; and Gompers was not named. He was appointed, however, 
with several others, to the commission entrusted with drafting the in- 
ternational labor convention to enter into the peace treaty, and was 
chosen its chairman. 

2 Held at Berne, February, igig. See page 285. 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 301 

continuation for a single day of the present war for the purpose of 
obtaining any objects aimed at by any of the secret treaties or 
agreements which are not in accord with the fourteen propositions 
of President Wilson or the Memorandum on War Aims. 

Next came the passages lifted from the statement of the British 
delegation summing up the results of the 'diplomacy of democracy": 

The Conference, taking note of the declarations and replies made 
to the Memorandum on War Aims of 20th-24th February by the 
labor and Socialist movements of the several countries in alliance 
with the Central Powers, 

1. Expresses its satisfaction with the replies of the Bulgarian 
and Hungarian Socialist, and the German Social Democratic party 
of Austria, in so far as they accept the decisions of the London Con- 
ference as the basis of discussion at an international meeting ; and 

2. Expresses its deep regret that the reply of the German Major- 
ity — though their published letter expresses their willingness to at- 
tend an international — does not accept the London proposals, and 
fails officially to accept even the neutrals' proposals as a basis of 
discussion. So long as these points remain unanswered they create 
an obstacle to the holding of an international conference. 

The Conference directs that the commission to be appointed for 
this purpose shall, as soon as may be possible, draft and forward 
replies through the press and other channels to the labor and Social- 
ist parties whose replies indicate a willingness to discuss the situa- 
tion on the agreed basis, pointing out that the difficulty in the way 
of an immediate international meeting is that the German response 
does not fulfill the conditions laid down by the Conference of 
20th-24th February, and urging them to use their influence to get 
the German attitude changed, and also to send a considered reply 
to the German Majority. . . . 

Here again the majority leadership was in for an attack from 
the French left. Longuet protested emphatically against the phrase 
that the non-acceptance of the London memorandum by the German 
majority was an obstacle to the holding of an international confer- 
ence. He favored an unconditional meeting with German labor, 
stating that France had already 1,700,000 dead, and that protrac- 
tion of the war meant extermination. But on the vote to change 
the wording from "obstacle" to "difficulty," only twenty-five votes 
were registered for the change. To quote the London Times: 

Mr. Henderson said the memorandum demanded reparation for 
Belgium. Would M. Longuet show them a single word from the 
German Government or the Majority Socialists accepting that condi- 
tion ? Had the condition been fulfilled in regard to Alsace-Lorraine, 
which they decided was a question not of territorial adjustment, but 
of right? M. Longuet wanted an unconditional conference. He 



302 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

could have it, but he would have it without British labor. (Cheers.) 
British labor was not going to defend German Socialism and sacrifice 
world democracy. They declared on February 14, 191 5, and at every 
conference they had held since, that a victory for Germany would 
mean the destruction of democracy and the annihilation of liberty. 

GOMPERS GOES DOWN WITH THE EXTREME RIGHT 

It was then that the attack shifted to the extreme right; and 
Gompers struck at that element in the Allied labor procedure which 
he had opposed throughout the year. He moved an amendment: 

That we will meet in conference with those only of the Central 
Powers who are in open revolt against their autocratic governments. 

Again to quote the London Times: 

He said he hoped to live to see the day when the workmen of all 
nations would refuse not only to take up arms, but to manufacture 
them, and by this means make war impossible. (Cheers.) He had 
not lost faith in the Internationale, but to end the struggle now would 
mean the breaking out of a new war as soon as the autocratic gov- 
ernments could get their machinery to work again. 

Gompers was voted down, as decisively as had been Longuet, 
63 to 26 (the Canadians and Italian Trade Unionists voting with 
the A. F. of L. delegation). The majority of 63 included the full 
British, French, Belgian, Serbian and Greek delegations and three 
votes cast by the Italian Socialists. W. J. Bowen announced that 
if another conference were held during the war to which delegates 
from enemy countries were to be admitted the representatives of the 
A. F. of L. would not take part. However, the American Federa- 
tion agreed to be represented in the new bureau appointed by the 
conference to carry out its policy and to draft replies to the parties 
of the Central Powers. 

The touchstone of the whole inter-belligerent conference pro- 
cedure had been the old question of passports, which dated back to 
the initial refusal of the governments at the time of the Stockholm 
meetings. Not only had the Inter-Allied Conference in February 
been balked in sending delegates to America, and later the British 
Trades Union Congress; but Henderson and Bowerman had been 
held up in going to France, and the Dutch Socialist Troelstra had 
been prevented from coming to England in June to report to the 
Allied labor leaders on the position of the German Socialists toward 
the war aims memorandum. In these things, Havelock Wilson and 
the Sailors' Union had been partners to the obstruction. Official 



IN FRANKLIN'S FOOTSTEPS 303 

copies of Allied labor's war aims memorandum had been held up 
in transit by both the British and the German governments. The 
Derby Trades Union Congress had passed a vigorous protest as to 
passports and the French Confederation had gone further and 
threatened strike action if labor were continually thwarted. The 
American delegates abstaining, the inter-Allied conference adopted 
the following, 57 to 10 — 

The conference, in view of the refusal of the governments to 
afford passport facilities to the properly elected representatives of 
organized labor, condemns the policy of the governments, and de- 
clares that the continuance of such policy is bound to lead to an 
acceptance of the government's challenge by the organized labor 
movement. 

The conference warns the governments that the patience of the 
organized working people is rapidly becoming exhausted by the 
continued affronts which are thus offered. 

The resolutions were carried paragraph by paragraph through- 
out, voting being by nationality, the American, British and French 
delegates being allotted 20 votes, the allotments to other delegations 
being proportionately smaller. The conference reached virtually 
unanimous decisions, Allied and American joined, upon ( 1 ) the Aus- 
trian peace proposals, (2) Russian intervention and (3) war aims. 



It was a saying of Poor Richard that if one "would have a thing 
well done, go; if not, send." In the winter and spring of 191 8, 
Gompers sent, and the information brought back by the American 
labor delegation which visited England at the expense of the British 
government, was of a distorted sort, both in fact and in prophecy. 
Their chairman described Henderson and his group as weak-kneed 
in the war and political parasites and what not. The efforts of the 
American labor mission to wean them from heresy failed; the group 
of pro-war Socialists posted off to try their hand, but with very 
similar results and very similar prophecies. 

Then Gompers himself went. 

If, as it was freely circulated in the American press, his mission 
was to bring back Henderson's head on a platter, — if his coming 
was to set up a trade union rival to the British Labour Party, split 
off from it the great Trades Union Congress in their joint war-aims 
program, and set up a purely trade union inter-Allied body to 
take the place of the inter-Allied Socialist and Labour Conference — 
if these things were the purposes of his trip (as they were the sub- 
ject of the confident prophecies), it was a complete failure. In the 



3 04 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

last chapter we saw how these separatist movements fizzled. Gom- 
pers brought home two old silver plates, the gift of British labor, 
but Henderson's head was on neither. 

But in a larger and finer sense, Gompers' trip was a success. 
A convinced opponent to socialism and to political action, he is, 
none the less, out of a lifetime's experience in adjusting difficulties 
between labor bodies, used to dealing with organized realities. And 
the British labor movement is an organized reality. Gompers was 
big enough to deal with it as it is and not as it had been painted. 
At the American- Allied meeting, New World labor joined with Old 
in reaffirming opposition in the field to Prussian militarism. Old 
World labor joined with New in reaffirming belief in President Wil- 
son's statement. New World labor joined with Old in subscribing 
to the Allied labor war aims. Old World labor .subscribed to the 
industrial charter offered by the American Federation of Labor. 
Old and new united in reaffirming the American labor proposals as 
to labor representation at the time of settlement. When it came 
to the issue of the inter-belligerent conference, the two parted and 
went their ways. 

That question, after all, was one of tactics — tactics which were 
rendered out of date within a month by governmental exchanges 
across the war that were as bitterly attacked in some quarters as 
labor's attempts had been; but tactics whose influence in provoking 
democratic risings among the German and Austrian and Bulgarian 
workers only the future historian will be able adequately to ap- 
praise. Once on the ground, Gompers split with British labor on 
the subject of tactics, but joined with it on the broad program 
for an unimperialistic peace which was common to both and to the 
American President. Said Gompers on the floor at the American- 
Allied Labour and Socialist Conference in London, September, 
1918: 

It has been said in Germany that I came to Europe to squelch 
the flame of revolt among the workers of England. I have been in 
England now three weeks and I have not seen the flame. I have 
only seen a spark here and there, far removed from the torch that 
is burning in the hands of British labor, and the labor of France, to 
carry on until we have the liberty to live our own lives. 



CHAPTER XXIII 

DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 

The opening day of the American-Allied Labour and Socialist 
Conference in London, [September 18, 1918] word came of the 
Austrian peace note. 

Within a week of its closing session, at which President Wilson's 
14 points became in a new sense the common platform of these 
workers of the New World and the Old, the President responded, 
in his Liberty Loan address, to the " assemblies and associations" of 
"plain workaday people," with a declaration as to five elements 
which must go into a democratic peace — elements that had been 
stressed by the Labour and Socialist Conferences of February and 
September. Within the month President Wilson's 14 points of 
January 8 and his five of September 27, became the basis of the 
appeal for peace of the new German chancellor. 

Swiftly, in those autumn weeks of 1918, democracy scored its 
double triumph. The stuff of that triumph was compounded of 
military force and political ideas. From the English Channel to 
the River Jordan, its armies drove victoriously at the forces of 
super-militarism. From Berlin and Vienna and Constantinople, the 
capitals of autocracy sent word that they accepted the terms set 
forth by the elected American President. 

Here in the United States we had seen less clearly perhaps than 
had democrats in England and France what distinctly new strength 
America brought into the Allied front in addition to what was reen- 
forcing. Men, money, ships, supplies — these things they had em- 
ployed before, these things mixed with courage and high resolve and 
the fighting capacity of the liberty loving peoples of Britain and 
France, of Belgium and Italy, Greece, Serbia and the rest. With 
two million men transported overseas, and with divisions, corps 
and armies in the thick of the great battles from the channel to 
Switzerland, we of the United States are stirred that American help 
turned the scales when that help was most sorely needed. 

But the American President brought into the conflict still an- 
other force. He set going a moral and political drive. It remained 
for Woodrow Wilson to parallel the military with a diplomatic 
offensive. 

305 



306 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

In the older terminology, the latter was designed to weaken 
enemy morale. Threats, the spread of rumors of enemy weaknesses, 
and such like had been used before on both sides with result only 
to stiffen each people to save themselves. The American President 
knew a greater TNT and employed it in his public outgivings. It 
was made up of equal parts of justice, democracy and the vision of 
a world order that should mean a chance for peace on earth and 
for good will among men. 

It gave the oppressed peoples of Central Europe — Pole and 
Czech and Jugo-Slav — a feeling that their cause was our cause as 
a matter not of favor but of general principle. To prompt stirrings 
of political revolt from the Danube to the Baltic might be to weaken 
the enemy morale — if we look at the mere negative side of the 
process. But it had its positive and truer side and that was to 
awaken democratic faith and fellowship among "suppressed but 
inextinguishable nationalities" and to release forces which, once a 
set-back came to the organized power of the Prussian military 
machine, might assert themselves. 

So, also, to distinguish between the German people and the Ger- 
man government that had engineered the war, to hold aloft a vision 
of a democratic world order in which they might find a place and 
fair dealing, once they had shaken loose from their masters, and 
from their masters' dreams of world domination, was in a negative 
sense to weaken enemy morale; but it had a positive and truer 
side. It made for wellsprings of unrest among the liberal and 
labor forces of Germany which, once a rift or check came to the 
Prussian machine, might well up into a tidal democratic force. 

Now, it must be said that American performance lagged woe- 
fully behind the insight and leadership of the President's utterance. 
It took twelve to eighteen months for his intuition to work its way 
down through the strata of administrative policy and action. Our 
natural allies in fanning the embers of racial freedom in Central 
Europe, lay close at hand in the immigrant populations of American 
cities and industrial districts. Yet, in 191 7, the average American 
newspaper got little farther than damning all hyphenates. By 191 8 
they had begun to publish with glad acclaim the strange guttural 
names of peoples who were potentialities in the struggle to throw 
off autocracy in Europe, as they had been fellow searchers with us 
for the treasures of democracy in the New World. On the Fourth 
of July, celebrations in a hundred American cities were happy 
auguries and symbols of Tennyson's parliament. Colorful parades 
put this new inrush of race and blood and loyalty in a living stream 
down our public thoroughfares. The change in public opinion was 
paralleled in official action. Through the foreign press bureau of 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 307 

the Committee on Public Information, the ties of immigrant folk 
with the oppressed nationalities of Central Europe were used, like 
the antennae of some new wireless, to message the fraternity of 
America. The change in the policy of the General Staff was equally 
slow in coming and equally significant. The Allied governments had 
seen the importance of visualizing the struggle of the oppressed 
peoples by bringing into the Western front troops who could bear 
their colors. While France was recruiting a Polish legion from the 
United States, groups of non-English speaking soldiers at American 
cantonments were suspect to commissioned and non-commissioned 
officers, broken up and passed around as undesirables. At one camp 
where 3,000 were studying English, 1,853 were transferred at one 
time. In January, the War Department, wishing to be humane, 
issued an order that all aliens, meaning all subjects of Germany and 
Austria-Hungary, might have the privilege of honorable discharge. 
When such enlightened commanders as Major General Glenn at 
Camp Sherman, set about a different course, encouraged meetings 
at which Her Slovane was sung — the Slovak patriotic hymn, for- 
bidden in the Austrian army, — the response was instant. "We have 
had a meeting and changed our minds about the discharge," said 
thirteen men out of a group of fourteen. "We want to fight for 
America." "My father and grandfathers never had any oppor- 
tunity to fight for liberty," wrote a Slovene. Then came another 
undiscriminating order, forbidding all these soldiers, who had re- 
fused discharge but who were not full citizens, from training for 
fighting. This would have meant a full division x lost to the com- 
batant strength of the army had the order stood. It was not until 
the summer and fall of 19 18 that these immigrant groups won gen- 
eral public sanction and official recognition. They won it largely 
as result of their own self-assertion, stimulated by the coming to 
America of Prof. Masaryk, to-day president of the new Bohemian 
republic, and by the friendly agitation of such Americans as Prof. 
Herbert Adolphus Miller of Western Reserve University. In Octo- 
ber tidings went overseas of a new liberty bell cast, a new declara- 
tion written and signed by representatives of twelve peoples, at 
Independence Hall in Philadelphia. 

Similarly, it took eighteen months for the President's intuition 
and expression of the common feeling among the workers of the 
world, battened down by the war, to reach the point of a real 
exchange with the "counsels of plain men." Here our natural allies 
were the organized workers among the Allies, who as the London 
Times shrewdly put it, could in their declarations address the "la- 

1 "The Lost Division," by Herbert Adolphus Miller, The Survey, June 
15, 1918. 



3 o8 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

bor socialists of enemy countries" and speak "a language to which 
they are accustomed." Yet for nine months after the two great 
British labor bodies had acclaimed the President's statement of war 
aims, no sign of recognition came to them from Washington in their 
unequal fight to espouse the cause of a democratic league of nations, 
of economic freedom and an unselfish settlement, against forces 
which disparaged and opposed those ends. There was no public 
intimation that the delegation the Allied Labour and Socialist Con- 
ference desired to send to America to "confer with the forces for 
democracy" would be received. Bowerman cabled Gompers in June, 
protesting against the "action of the American government" in hold- 
ing up the passports of the two delegates from the British Trades 
Union Congress. "Nobody who ought to get out of England will 
be denied a passport," said a member of the returned American 
labor mission. "I thought of this attitude of some of the dele- 
gates," wrote John A. Fitch, industrial editor of The Survey, in 
reviewing the St. Paul convention of the A. F. of L., 1 

when I heard one of the undoubted leaders of the federation say 
on the floor of the convention that in no other country had the trade 
union movement been accorded the recognition of its government 
that the American Federation of Labor has received from the present 
administration. It led me to wonder whether, after all, it was either 
government which took the initiative in barring the British delegates. 

In stark contrast, all questions of passports were waived in the 
eleventh hour dispatch at that time of the delegation of the Social 
Democratic League on their foreign mission which brought them 
into conflict with the majority opinion in British labor. They were 
joined on the other side by Charles Edward Russell, who for months 
had been the London representative of the United States Committee 
on Public Information. The American Alliance for Labor and 
Democracy was the subject of a commendatory message from Pres- 
ident Wilson during the period in which it was sending out Wallings' 
unbridled attacks upon Henderson. Conceivably the administra- 
tion's information was as distorted and as fallacious as had been 
Gompers'. Conceivably control of international labor relations was 
regarded in Washington as the province if not the reward of the 
American Federation of Labor. Gompers' services to the adminis- 
tration were thought of so highly by a member of the cabinet that 
one issue of the New York Nation was actually barred from the 
mails for venturing the lese majesty of criticizing the intent of his 
trip — an interference with the liberty of the press which contrasted 

1 "British Labor Out of It : The American Federation of Labor Con- 
vention at St. Paul," by John A. Fitch, The Survey, June 29, 1918. 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 309 

painfully with that broad spirit of toleration and ingrained belief in 
liberty which assured the Labour Leader and the Herald and many 
other papers free circulation throughout England, in spite of their 
sweeping condemnations not only of private citizens but of the 
Premier himself. Only when The Nation's case was carried by 
its publisher to the White House was the Postmaster General over- 
ruled. When all known factors are given their due weight, there 
remains a margin of facts which are unexplained, and which only 
the future can clear up from the assumption that President Wilson 
wanted to play a lone hand. For, both officially and unofficially, the 
White House must have had creditable reports of the truth that 
has been emphasized in this book that the British labor movement, 
and with it Allied labor, was the one organized force in all Europe — 
or for that matter in America — which could be counted upon to 
stand unflinchingly for the democratic principles which President 
Wilson had set forth as America's stake in the war — the principles 
which, as nothing else, gave body to democratic endurance among 
the Allies, and provoked a ferment of revolt among the common 
people of the Central Empires. 

It was not until his September 27 (1918) address that the Pres- 
ident hailed the Allied workers in issuing his tremendous call to the 
smoldering flames of democratic self-determination in Germany and 
Austria. 

To the suppressed peoples and the constrained working-classes of 
the Central Empires, he spoke in this fashion: — 

At every turn of the war we gain a fresh consciousness of what 
we mean to accomplish by it. When our hope and expectation are 
most excited we think more definitely than before of the issues that 
hang upon it and of the purposes which must be realized by means 
of it. For it has positive and well-defined purposes which we did 
not determine and which we cannot alter. No statesman or assem- 
bly created them; no statesman or assembly can alter them. They 
have arisen out of the very nature and circumstances of the war. 
The most that statesmen or assemblies can do is to carry them out 
or be false to them. They were perhaps not clear at the outset; but 
they are clear now. The war has lasted more than four years and 
the whole world has been drawn into it. The common will of man- 
kind has been substituted for the particular purposes of individual 
states. Individual statesmen may have started the conflict, but 
neither they nor their opponents can stop it as they please. It has 
become a peoples' war, and peoples of all sorts and races, of every 
degree of power and variety of fortune, are involved in its sweeping 
processes of change and settlement. We came into it when its char- 
acter had become fully defined and it was plain that no nation could 
stand apart or be indifferent to its outcome. Its challenge drove to 



3 io THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

the heart of everything we cared for and lived for. The voice of 
the war had become clear and gripped our hearts. Our brothers 
from many lands, as well as our own murdered dead under the sea, 
were calling to us, and we responded, fiercely and of course. 

The air was clear about us. We saw things in their full, convinc- 
ing proportions as they were; and we have seen them with steady 
eyes and unchanging comprehension ever since. We accepted the 
issues of the war as facts, not as any group of men either here or 
elsewhere had defined them, and we can accept no outcome which 
does not squarely meet and settle them. Those issues are these: 

Shall the military power of any nation or group of nations be 
suffered to determine the fortunes of peoples over whom they have: 
no right to rule except the right of force? 

Shall strong nations be free to wrong weak nations and make 
them subject to their purpose and interest? 

Shall peoples be ruled and dominated, even in their own internal 
affairs, by arbitrary and irresponsible force or by their own will 
and choice? 

Shall there be a common standard of right and privilege for all 
peoples and nations or shall the strong do as they will and the weak 
suffer without redress? 

Shall the assertion of right be haphazard and by casual alliance 
or shall there be a common concert to oblige the observance of com- 
mon rights? 

No man, no group of men, chose these to be the issues of the 
struggle. They are the issues of it; and they must be settled — 
by no arrangement or compromise or adjustment of interests, but 
definitely and once for all and with a full and unequivocal acceptance 
of the principle that the interest of the weakest is as sacred as the 
interest of the strongest. 

This is what we mean when we speak of a permanent peace, if 
we speak sincerely, intelligently, and with a real knowledge and com- 
prehension of the matter we deal with. 

We are all agreed that there can be no peace obtained by any 
kind of bargain or compromise with the governments of the Central 
Empires, because we have dealt with them already and have seen 
them deal with other governments that were parties to this struggle, 
at Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest. They have convinced us that they 
are without honor and do not intend justice. They observe no cove- 
nants, accept no principle but force and their own interest. We 
cannot "come to terms" with them. They have made it impossible. 
The German people must by this time be fully aware that we cannot 
accept the word of those who forced this war upon us. We do not 
think the same thoughts or speak the same language of agreement. 

FROM UNREST TO UPRISING IN GERMANY 

How deep seated and competent the forces of unrest in Germany 
and Austria-Hungary had become during the months of 191 8, the 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 311 

ordinary person had no means for knowing. The President's appeal 
had been directed most consistently to release those of liberalism 
and national aspiration ; that of Allied labor, to working class action. 
One thing was certain: that in the late winter and spring the Pan- 
Germans bore down all opposition at home in their supreme attempt 
to break through in the west and dictate peace as they had done 
at Brest-Litovsk. 

Nevertheless Camille Huysmans had brought word to the Eng- 
lish labor leaders as early as January 20, 1918, that the effect of 
President Wilson's statements inside the Central Empires quite out- 
ran anything the German government or the German press ad- 
mitted. Gains had been made in popular self-assertion the summer 
before, but during the latter half of 191 7 there had been a stiffening 
up of the dominant opinion, said Huysmans. The German Majority 
Socialists, he thought, were not so much out of joint with demo- 
cratic terms of settlement, as that, given the public temper, they 
were hopeless of carrying them. They had yet, however, to recog- 
nize — much less to believe that the German nation would recognize 
— that the question of Alsace-Lorraine had been reopened by the 
war as a question of right. 

British labor, out of its own experiences with a government labor 
faction, if for no other reason, had few illusions as to devil and 
deep sea boundaries of the German Majority Socialists — their fac- 
tional coercive powers and their insecurity, both above and below. 
But it had other reasons. Karl Kautsky, speaking for the Inde- 
pendent Social Democratic Party of Germany, in the conversations 
before the Stockholm Committee, on June 29, 1917 (according to 
the official report of the proceedings as republished by the British 
Labour Party in August, 19 18), 

pointed out how the socialists of the so-called majority in Germany 
appeared to have the same peace program as the Independent Social 
Democrats, since both demand a peace without annexations or indem- 
nities, but how the agreement consisted solely in the use of the same 
words, to which the other section assigned a different meaning. 

He contended that the views of the majority party were 

animated by the spirit of a nationalist policy based on force and of 
militarist thought, which rendered their attitude towards each prob- 
lem dependent on the military situation. This he demonstrated in 
detail from the clauses dealing with Austria and Turkey, with Bel- 
gium, Poland, and Alsace-Lorraine. 

Vorwarts published a leading article in March, 19 18, in reply 
to the war aims memorandum of the Inter-Allied Labour and Social- 



3 i2 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

ist Conference at London in February. As reprinted in the London 
Times, Vorwarts [Majority Socialist] said: 

The Allied socialists have now evolved an ideal of the coming 
peace conditions to which we can, on many points, subscribe, though 
not on all. But the points on which we disagree have no great prac- 
tical significance. What is more important is the question whether 
such ideal demands have any prospect of realization, or whether a 
great part of the socialistic work which is to contribute to a lasting 
peace, will not be achieved after the conclusion of that peace. 

The German Social Democrats were the first to undergo the 
experience that it is immensely difficult for the socialist party of a 
victorious state to realize their ideal demands. The peace with 
Russia has not turned out as we had imagined it. Yet the influence 
of the socialists in France, England and Italy is not greater, but 
less, than in Germany. In such circumstances can idealistic demands, 
wise or unwise as they may be politically, be described as more than 
a house of cards to be overthrown by any wind that blows? In 
place of an abstract, universal, just formula would it not be better 
to seek a basis of practical agreement answering to conditions as 
they now exist? 

Possibly the Allied socialists consider absolutely just certain de- 
mands which they make upon Germany and her allies, but they 
should not overlook the fact that agreement of the Central Powers 
to such demands nowadays is not expected. There are in Germany 
two tendencies— one which would be ready to conclude peace at 
once with the West upon the basis of restoration and the status quo 
ante helium; and another, which demands alterations favorable to 
German extension and power. No tendency willing to concede 
alterations unfavorable to Germany can be said to exist. For instance, 
a German peace negotiator who would be ready to make concessions 
with regard to Alsace-Lorraine or Posen would have no prospect of 
being able to maintain himself in office for twenty-four hours. Pos- 
sibly the Entente sees in this a fresh proof of the moral obstinacy 
of Germany, but this is no moral question, only one of facts. 

If at the peace conference a proposal were made by negotiators 
that the Central Powers should allow Czechs, Slovaks and Jugo- 
slavs to form a free union of Danube states in place of the Austro- 
Hungarian Empire, what would be the answer? We beg to be 
excused for saying that the Central Powers would simply laugh ! 
Because, first of all, the fact would be overlooked that in the Aus- 
tro-Hungarian Empire there are others besides the above named 
peoples. In addition to which, it would be extremely Utopian to 
present demands to an unconquered state to operate on its own 
body. 

The idea that Alsace-Lorraine peoples should be consulted repre- 
sents a decided step down from the former attitude of unqualified 
disannexation. Practically no great result could be expected. If 
victorious, France would never forego her "rights" to Alsace-Lor- 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 313 

raine or allow them to be in any way disputed. At the best we 
should be treated to a poor comedy of self-determination. In the 
same way, the German bourgeois sees no military grounds for con- 
senting to a revision of the Alsace-Lorraine question. Demands for 
such would be absolutely without a chance for success. Apart from 
this there are very good grounds for refusing to allow the posses- 
sion of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany to be any further disputed. 
The population of Alsace-Lorraine belongs ethnographically to the 
German people. The province has, according to the Social Demo- 
cratic conception, the right to her freedom within the German 
Empire, but her right to secede from it altogether is, to say the least, 
a very debatable question. 

Meanwhile, the time for such more or less academic considera- 
tions is past. All socialistic effort must concentrate upon a peace 
which is tenable and bearable for all. And why should it be unbear- 
able for England, France, Belgium and Italy if a peace were con- 
cluded which restored in the main the pre-war conditions in the 
West ? In any case they would do well to remember that a program 
is unworkable as a practicable peace program which is drawn up 
beforehand to the disadvantage of the Central Powers. Such a pro- 
gram could not be realized either by an international Socialist con- 
gress or by a diplomatic conference, but only by the victory of the 
Entente. 

Yet as early as midwinter of 19 18, there were indications that 
in trade union after trade union, the Independent Socialists, not 
a few of whose leaders were in prison, were undermining this major- 
ity element that had knuckled in to the government. Thus, to quote 
some paragraphs in the Manchester Guardian of March 2, 19 18, on 
"The Rift in German Socialism": — 

Socialism in Germany has two aspects, parliamentary and trade 
union. The Parliamentary Party split relatively early, and after 
efforts at compromise failed, the Independents set about constitut- 
ing their own party organization throughout the country. Defection 
from the Majority Party has from time to time increased the strength 
of the Independents in the Reichstag, and beyond doubt their growth 
in the country among the masses has been much more rapid. But 
hitherto the Majority Party have maintained absolute control over 
the socialist trade unions. 

What this meant was shown during the strikes. The directorate 
of the trade union organization denounced the strike, and the trade 
unions withheld strike pay. The vice-chancellor cited this last as 
one of the effective causes of the collapse of the strike movement. 
The strikers, on their part, made plain that they had still less con- 
fidence in the trade union leaders than in the Reichstag majority 
deputies. It was hoped that the strike would have educated the 
Majority Party to its duty, but there is little trace of a change of 



3 i4 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

heart and mind. The Majority very tepidly rebuked the government 
for its treatment of Russia, but are determined not to go into oppo- 
sition or to separate from the "bourgeois" party, who with them con- 
stitute the majority of the Reichstag. 

The Independent Socialist Party is drawing the moral that it 
must establish itself in the trade unions also and wrest the monopoly 
of them from a party which has proved unfaithful to its socialist 
provisions. A beginning is being attempted at Stuttgart to form a 
new trade union organization under independent auspices. Of course 
this is denounced by the Majority as the extension of a fratricidal 
struggle. But the Independents, not unnaturally, hold that the world, 
after years of devastated war, has got to the stage at which only 
realities matter, not labels ; and that where there is clear conflict of 
ideas and actions it is humbug to speak of brotherhood. This new 
movement deserves the closest watching. It is likely to develop 
more quickly than the political split which was the prelude to it. 

As a straw, also, take this paragraph from an article published 
in the Tdgliche Rundschau in June — some time after the Allied labor 
memorandum may be supposed to have percolated among the Ger- 
man workers: 

When placards which display the world situation and our position 
as against our enemies are openly ridiculed and described as lies 
and deception, and when, at a meeting of the Fatherland Party 
broken up by socialists, the cry can be heard : "He who fights against 
England is an enemy of mankind," the initiated understand from 
what direction the wind is blowing. 

Scheideman, speaking on July 5, before the Reichstag on von 
Kiihlmann's speech, charged that "the gentlemen at main headquar- 
ters" were "self-deceived if they believe they are able to impose 
peace on the world." 

"In principle, we socialists," this majority party leader said, "are 
against all annexations, all violence, whether with great or little 
sacrifices, or whether useful or useless for the conquering peo- 
ple. . . . The oppression is the more revolting the greater the dif- 
ference between the strength of the oppressor and the oppressed." 
But he still based his position less on questions of principle than on 
questions of fact. In the matter of facts he may be considered a 
competent witness of the following: — 

Amongst the masses an intensified bitterness exists, not only 
among the industrial working people, but also among the great 
masses of the officials, clerks, middle classes and agricultural people, 
and throughout the country there is only one feeling which can be 
summarized in one word — finish. Finish honorably, of course. On 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 315 

this point there is no difference of opinion. Finish without humilia- 
tion of Germany, but finish (strong applause from the left). The 
people know the truth and are completely unmoved by any attempts 
to impress them. The people want to end this war as quickly as 
possible for a war of defense which has succeeded. 

The government must be the bearer of this inflexible will of 
the people. We demand from you that the government recognize 
the right of Belgium to complete independence, without any reserve, 
and that she does everything in order to gain us a speedy peace with- 
out harming the interests of Germany. A government which would 
follow such a broad policy of peace we should gladly support, but for 
a government which, after four years of war, has not been able to 
suppress the military law, we cannot vote the credits. It is high 
time to recognize the needs of the people and to act accordingly. 

Strikes and the threats of strikes became so acute in July and 
August, and the increase of the vote for socialist candidates of the 
radical and republican minority at local elections became so pro- 
nounced that the government sought refuge from the gathering 
storm by inviting the leaders of the moderate Socialist Majority to 
come into the cabinet. In answer, Scheidemann and his colleagues 
produced an ultimatum reiterating the peace aims of the July, 19 17, 
resolution, with various new ones, and amplified by a number of 
detailed demands for drastic changes in the constitution and civil 
law, including complete freedom of the press and of assembly and 
appointment of all cabinet officers from the Reichstag majority. 
The Hertling cabinet, with its Junker backing, we are now told, was 
unable to accept these conditions and fell. 

How much of these domestic tendencies would have been con- 
veyed to the British and Allied leaders by Troelstra, the Dutch 
Socialist who was denied passports to England in June, we do not 
know. He cabled (July 1, 19 18) that the German majority Social- 
ists would accept the peace proposals of the Stockholm neutral com- 
mittee — a cable which led Henderson to make a hopeful announce- 
ment. 

This Henderson later retracted, for a letter by Herman Muller 
of the Socialist Democratic Party, dated June 26 and later printed 
in Vorwarts, stated that the Majority Socialists were ready to meet 
with Allied representatives but saw "no cause to depart" from their 
earlier declarations (approved by the party congress at Wurzburg 
in August, 191 7) which, as already pointed out, the Independent 
Social Democrats had denounced at Stockholm. Also, early in 
July, Troelstra wrote an open letter to Henderson in Het Volk, 
which made it clear that the Majority German Socialists were un- 
prepared to accept the London memorandum or the neutral man- 



3 i6 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

ifesto as the basis for an inter-belligerent labor conference without 
those reservations x which Henderson scored at the American-Allied 
Labour and Socialist conference in mid-September. It was this 
failure of the German majority group to table a satisfactory reply, 
no less than the question of passports, that created the "obstacle" 
which led Allied labor at London (Chapter XXII) to pass its reso- 
lutions calling on the minority groups in Germany and elsewhere to 
exert their pressure upon the German majority. 

ANSWERS TO LABOR'S DIPLOMACY 

Knowledge of the existence of such groups and belief that they 
were increasingly getting out of hand gave the Allied labor leaders 
firmness in holding to the inter-belligerent conference project as a 
fulcrum for their democratic leverage. At a time when even such 
optimistic prophets as General Smuts did not see prospect of a mil- 
itary decision short of another year, they refused to abandon it in 
the face of government hostility that threatened to wreck the unity 
of the British labor movement on this issue. 

But these chapters have been seriously at fault if they have 
conveyed the impression that the Allied labor leaders pinned their 
hopes for results from their "diplomacy of democracy" solely upon 
a consultative conference. Their tactics embraced first of all that 
massing of evidence as to democratic aims, of assurances as to Allied 
labor's intention to stand out against counter aggression in the event 
of working class insurgency in the Central Powers, which we have 
interpreted at length. In August, the British Labour Party brought 
out in pamphlet form the replies that had been received to date 
from the socialist parties of the Central Powers. Those of the 
Bulgarian, Austrian and Hungarian groups are of very real signifi- 
cance in the light of subsequent events. 

The reply of the Bulgarian United Social Democratic Party, the 
"Broads," was published in Narod in April and May. They gave 
their full support to the 

general part of the inter-allied memorandum, the league of nations, 
disarmament, arbitration and the peoples' right to settle their own 

*A dispatch to the London Times from Amsterdam on September 16, 
stated that Troelstra had been in conference with Ebert, chairman of the 
German Majority Socialists — and later head of the socialist government 
which succeeded that of Prince Max — stating that the German Majority- 
Socialists accepted as a basis the neutral memorandum of the Dutch- 
Scandinavian Committee of Stockholm, except as regards compensation to 
Belgium (on which they suggested some compromise) and as regards 
Alsace-Lorraine (on which they maintained their standpoint). 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 31 j 

destiny. This part does not admit of compromise and, according to 
a declaration made by Henderson, it bears the character of an ulti- 
matum addressed to the socialists of Germany, Austria-Hungary and 
Bulgaria. . . . 

One half of the international proposes a formal solution for a 
common international organization in the immediate future, and 
gives concrete proposals for the future of all countries and different 
states. 

The transmission of the Inter-Allied memorandum to us — the So- 
cialists of the Central Powers — constitutes a remarkable event which 
may have great consequences for Inter-Socialist relations. 

In disagreement, the Bulgarians wanted to see the rule of inter- 
national control proposed for tropical Africa adapted to all col- 
onies; the rule of nullification of the Treaty of Frankfort which 
tore Alsace and Lorraine from France, applied to treaties which 
divided Macedonia between Serbia and Greece. They demanded for 
its people the right of self-determination. 

The Hungarian Social Democratic Party 1 declared that the 
resolutions of the London conference were "not opposed" to the 
views it had expressed to the Dutch-Scandinavian Committee at 
Stockholm: 

The principal conditions we have indicated are: — The federation 
of all nations in a league of nations; the obtaining by all peoples 
of the right of self-determination; international disarmament; com- 
pulsory courts of arbitration ; a peace without annexations or punitive 
contributions; the recognition of the right of free economic devel- 
opment for all nations, and the incorporation of the social demands 
of labor in the peace treaty. 

We declared, in particular, in favor of the restitution of Belgium 
and Serbia, and examined in detail the question of indemnities with 
regard to these two countries. 

After reconsidering our Stockholm memorandum, we are bound 
to declare that the resolutions of the London Conference are not 
opposed to our views. 

It follows that we consider the resolutions of the London Confer- 
ence, as well as the results of the Stockholm discussions, as a suitable 
basis for an immediate convocation of an international conference, 
and we should gladly welcome such a conference. We declare be- 
forehand our acceptance of every resolution agreed upon by this 
conference, and inspired by a labor and socialist spirit, and we de- 
clare that we will fight with all our strength for the execution of 
such resolutions, prepared as we are to make the greatest sacrifices 
in order to attain this end. 

1 The Hungarian text was a translation of original documents handed 
to Troelstra by a representative of the Hungarian party, and published in 
Het Volk, the organ of the Dutch Socialist Party. 



318 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

The reply of the German Social Democratic Party of Austria 
was published in Die Arbeiter-Zeitung of June 28, 1918. The 
peace should realize, it said, the following principles: 

Firstly. — Union of all peoples in a league of nations, which would 
effect international disarmament, submit all conflicts between states 
to the decision of a compulsory arbitration tribunal, and bring the 
collective strength of the whole league to bear on any state which 
transgressed international law. 

Secondly. — No annexations. The solution of all territorial ques- 
tions on the basis of the rights of peoples to dispose of themselves. 

Thirdly. — No indemnities. Equal freedom of economic develop- 
ment for all peoples and the prevention of all economic wars. 

Such a peace, in the view of the Austrian Socialists could "not 
be obtained by the victory of one imperialist group over the other"; 
nor would a "so-called peace by conciliation, concluded from cap- 
italist considerations, completely realize it," but it might "consoli-, 
date the democratic, peaceful and socialist tendencies in all coun- 
tries," — especially if labor and socialism were to succeed by their 
action in bringing their governments to the discussion table, and 
thus "appear to the peoples as the peace bringers, the liberators 
from the horrors and sacrifices of war." Therefore: — 

The sooner the working classes in all belligerent countries decide 
to exercise pressure on their governments in favor of peace, the 
sooner will they be able to exercise an influence not only upon the 
beginning of the peace negotiations, but also upon the terms of peace 
and the future organization of mankind. 

Points in the Austrian reply of special interest were these: — 

We demand the transformation of Austria-Hungary into a fed- 
eration of autonomous states, and we also demand the creation of a 
League of the Balkan peoples. 

We oppose all annexations by the Central Powers of frontier 
peoples detached from Russia. In Parliament and in the press we 
have fought against the peace of Brest-Litovsk and the peace of 
Bucharest, and when Parliament has to come to a decision on those 
treaties, we shall reject every sentence which connotes annexation 
or violence. 

We claim, as we have always done, the reestablishment and com- 
pensation of Belgium. But we do not consider that the question of 
who is to bear the expense of this compensation is one of first-rate 
importance from the point of view of the beginning of peace nego- 
tiations. 

Considering the immense sacrifices of the war, sacrifices not only 
in money and goods but in human life, we oppose any prolongation 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 319 

of the war on account of disagreements over financial questions. We 
think that there must be a compromise on the apportionment of the 
cost of reconstruction of the small countries. 

With regard to the questions of Alsace-Lorraine, Italy, Poland, 
Turkey and the tropical colonies, we are of the opinion that an 
absolutely democratic peace, a peace consistent with the principles 
of International Socialism, would settle these questions also in the 
spirit of the peoples' right of self-determination. But we are under 
no illusions on this point; we appreciate the fact that this demand 
will not be realized. 

Even by the roundabout methods through which British labor 
gained intelligence of the replies noted, nothing got through from 
the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany. Its general 
temper can be indicated by some paragraphs from its earlier Stock- 
holm memorandum: 

We demand the fullest freedom for international trade and inter- 
course, as well as an unrestricted right of emigration and of immi- 
gration, with the object of developing the world's productive forces 
and of bringing the peoples into closer touch with each other and 
multiplying the bonds which unite them. 

We oppose any policy of economic isolation and any economic 
struggle between states. All disputes between states must be settled 
by international arbitration. . . . 

In the same way we condemn this method of solving the question 
of Alsace-Lorraine, and here we are in agreement with Engels and 
Jaures. A prolongation of the war on the question of Alsace-Lor- 
raine now means that the whole world, including Alsace-Lorraine, 
is to be ravaged because of the dispute which has arisen in regard 
to the wishes of this population, and that more people will be de- 
stroyed on the battlefields than there are inhabitants in Alsace-Lor- 
raine. . . . 

Complete political and economic independence of Belgium is in- 
evitable. In fulfillment of the solemn promise of the German gov- 
ernment at the beginning of the war, the Belgian nation must obtain 
reparation for the damage caused by the war, and especially for the 
economic loss which it has sustained. 

Such reparation has nothing in common with the war indemnities, 
which are simply a plundering of the vanquished by the victor, and 
which we therefore reject. . . . 

The drawing up of a peace program is important, but this pro- 
gram is nothing but smoke if it is not supported by energetic interna- 
tional action on the part of the masses. 

We must compel all the governments to adopt unconditionally 
this international peace program. We must refuse credits to any 
government which rejects this program, replies evasively or does not 
declare itself ready to enter into peace negotiations on the basis of 



320 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

this program. Such a government must be fought in the most de- 
cisive manner. 

The organization and prosecution of such common action should 
be the first task of the proposed international peace conference. It 
must bring together all the really Socialist elements, determined 
to work with all their strength to this end. 

In the light of the October and November uprisings, additional 
paragraphs in the Hungarian and Austrian replies have importance. 
They were couched in terms of concerted international action; they 
were executed nationally; that even in July there was prospect of 
this was indicated by the fact that these paragraphs were suppressed 
by the Hungarian and Austrian censors. 

The censored Hungarian paragraph read: 

We consider it the greatest danger for the whole future of the 
labor and socialist movement that — putting aside all special ques- 
tions — we should not now reach an agreement amongst labor and 
socialist parties on this one point, the necessity of bringing pressure 
on the governments by common and simultaneous action. 

From the movements conducted by the Hungarian Party, during 
the last year, movements which found expression in meetings, dem- 
onstrations, and general strikes in favor of peace, and from the 
influence exercised by these movments and those of the working 
classes in Austria and Germany, both on each other and the oppo- 
nents of the working classes, and also from the absence of strong 
action in the Entente countries, we conclude that the movements of 
the working classes, who think and feel internationally, must be the 
consequence of an international agreement and be directed inter- 
nationally. Every other method, if not a complete failure, would, 
at the very least, be followed by a complete absence of results and 
a waste of working-class strength. 

The censored Austrian paragraph read: 

The most important task of labor and socialism is rdther to push 
the governments towards peace by taking strong action in every 
country. If this policy is carried out continuously and with great 
enough force in the different countries, the governments will be 
obliged to take their places at the same table for the purpose of 
negotiations, and will find themselves in a compromise between their 
respective demands; that compromise will be the basis of the peace 
treaty. The organization of such work on the part of the working 
classes of all countries would, in our opinion, be the most important 
work of the international conference. 

LABOR PRESSURE UPON THE ALLIED GOVERNMENTS 

There was yet another line of pressure exerted by the Allied 
labor and socialist concert — that upon their own governments to 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 321 

parallel the joint labor formulation of war aims with a joint gov- 
ernment formulation — both as a democratic assurance which would 
strengthen unity at home, and as a challenge to the workers in the 
Central Empires to bring pressure to bear upon their own govern- 
ments to match it — which last, in the end, however generated and 
under the shadow of military defeat, broke through the encrustings 
of German and Austrian imperialism. For it was this social pres- 
sure upon the governments, not to stop the war but to lay down the 
basis for a democratic peace; not to bargain, but to lay down the 
principles which should be compromised in neither war nor peace, 
that was the motivation of the controlling majority Allied labor 
groups. We have followed their expression of it through these 
pages. 

At its meeting in September (1918), the Inter- Allied Labour 
and Socialist Conference in London approved the stand of President 
Wilson in rejecting the Austrian note on the ground that it pro- 
posed a secret conference and that the government of the United 
States had "clearly and publicly formulated its own war aims." It 
then turned round and challenged the Allied governments, whatever 
their earlier commitments to each other, formally to 

subscribe to the fourteen points formulated by President Wilson, 
thus adopting a policy of clearness and moderation as opposed to a 
policy dictated exclusively by changes in the war map. . . . 

It is by defining their own war aims jointly with the United 
States, with the same precision and clearness, that the Allied govern- 
ments will give to the workers of the world the conviction they are 
resolved to continue the struggle not in order to meet the aggression 
of the central monarchies by undertaking in their turn a war of 
conquest, but for the single purpose of establishing on an unassail- 
able foundation a peace which will be just and lasting, and in con- 
formity with the aspirations of international democracy. 

Clearly it was to this Allied labor resolution that, a week later, 
the President in his September 27 address replied: — 

As I have said, neither I nor any other man in governmental 
authority created or gave form to the issues of this war. I have 
simply responded to them with such vision as I could command. But 
I have responded gladly and with a resolution that has grown warmer 
and more confident as the issues have grown clearer and clearer. It 
is now plain that they are issues which no man can pervert unless 
it be willfully. I am bound to fight for them, and happy to fight for 
them as time and circumstance have revealed them to me as to all 
the world. Our enthusiasm for them grows more and more irre- 
sistible as they stand out in more and more vivid and unmistakable 
outline. 



322 [THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

And the forces that fight for them draw into closer and closer 
array, organize their millions into more and more unconquerable 
might, as they become more and more distinct to the thought and 
purpose of the peoples engaged. It is the peculiarity of this great 
war that while statesmen have seemed to cast about for definitions 
of their purpose and have sometimes seemed to shift their ground 
and their point of view, the thought of the mass of men, whom 
statesmen are supposed to instruct and lead, has grown more and 
more unclouded, more and more certain of what it is that they are 
fighting for. National purposes have fallen more and more into 
the background and the common purpose of enlightened mankind has 
taken their place. The counsels of plain men have become on all 
hands more simple and straightforward and more unified than the 
counsels of sophisticated men of affairs, who still retain the impres- 
sion that they are playing a game of power and playing for high 
stakes. That is why I have said that this is a peoples' war, not a 
statesmen's. Statesmen must follow the clarified common thought 
or be broken. 

I take that to be the significance of the fact that assemblies and 
associations of many kinds made up of plain workaday people have 
demanded, almost every time they came together, and are still de- 
manding, that the leaders of their governments declare to them 
plainly what it is, exactly what it is, that they are seeking in this 
war, and what they think the items of the final settlement should be. 
They are not yet satisfied with what they have been told. They 
still seem to fear that they are getting what they ask for only in 
statesmen's terms, — only in the terms of territorial arrangements 
and divisions of power, and not in terms of broad-visioned justice 
and mercy and peace and the satisfaction of those deep-seated long- 
ings of oppressed and distracted men and women and enslaved peo- 
ples that seem to them the only things worth fighting a war for that 
engulfs the world. Perhaps statesmen have not always recognized 
this changed aspect of the whole world of policy and action. Per- 
haps they have not always spoken in direct reply to the questions 
asked because they did not know how searching those questions were 
and what sort of answers they demanded. 

But I, for one, am glad to attempt the answer again and again, 
in the hope that I may make it clearer and clearer that my one 
thought is to satisfy those who struggle in the ranks and are, perhaps 
above all others, entitled to a reply whose meaning no one can have 
any excuse for misunderstanding, if he understands the language in 
which it is spoken or can get some one to translate it correctly into 
his own. . . . 

FRUITS OF THE CTVIL OFFENSIVE 

Balked by the German majority Socialists in their inter-belliger- 
ent conference project, and balked at home in their efforts to get a 
joint statement of war aims from the Allied governments, the Allied 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 323 

workers kept their own blade of labor diplomacy in hand but stood 
ready to sustain the American President in his civil offensive; just 
as they continued to stand ready to back up their own armies in 
the military offensive so long as the threat of German militarism 
hung over Europe. 

As in the case of the military command, the caliber of this moral 
and political drive depended upon unity. We have seen that, while 
neither the President nor Allied labor had succeeded in drawing out 
the Allied governments as a whole, British labor had elicited a state- 
ment from the Premier in December, 19 17, which was fairly parallel 
to its own, and that Lloyd George in Paris in July, 19 18, stated 
that the Germans could have peace to-morrow if they would accept 
it on Wilson's terms — a statement which was paralleled by General 
Smuts in September. We have seen that it was this knowledge 
which made it tenable for such a labor leader as Clynes, the food 
controller, to remain in the government. With then, the American 
President, members of the British cabinet, liberals in France and 
England, Allied socialist and labor bodies, we had a new, if frag- 
mentary, western front of diplomacy. 

It is of course altogether clear that this civil offensive alone 
would not have produced the quick about-face in October on the 
part of Germany. So long as the army was gaining, the pan-Ger- 
mans were in the saddle. The answer to them was force — force to 
the uttermost. It meant death and struggle and courage unstinted, 
poured into the military offensive. But it is doubtful if the recoil 
of the German armies, even if supplies and men were in parlous 
jeopardy on French soil, would have led to such a quick abandon- 
ment of the program of conquest, had it not been for the insur- 
gent civilian forces which had been released by the new statesman- 
ship of the West. As General Maurice pointed out, probably never 
before in history had a nation admitted defeat with its armies still 
far in enemy territory. 

First to be reckoned with was the consummate ability of Foch, 
Dias, Petain, Haig, Pershing and their lieutenants, the tremendous 
impact of valor and metal with which they battered through the 
Hindenburg line. But there were other forces at work. There was 
the silent pressure of the British fleet and the sapping of under- 
nourishment. There was the incalculable mining of Bolshevism, 
however despised in the Allied capitals. The prospect of 250,000 
fresh American troops a month and ultimate defeat entered in; and 
also, the prospect of an American settlement. In the rapid exchange 
of notes, the superiority of the new tactics to the old seems incon- 
trovertible. Every fuming of fresh reprisals, of annihilation and 
counter-conquest, on the part of Allied statesmen had thrown Ger- 



324 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

man liberals into the hands of the old order. But President Wil- 
son's insistence upon a convincing exhibit of popular control as a 
precedent to peace could not permanently be turned by the Pan- 
Germans to their advantage; his demand for more and more power 
in the hands of the German democracy was a demand not for their 
annihilation but for their deliverance. To their reenforcement, also, 
was his inescapable citation of fresh U-boat activities and the abuse 
of civilians in the course of the retreat in France, as a test of their 
sincerity and of their ability to hold the powers of ruthlessness in 
leash. For the President to have refused to deal with the German 
people on the terms he had set would have exploded his whole 
statesmanship; to be Scotch-Irish canny to the tips of his fingers 
in making sure that he was dealing with the people and on those 
terms, was a different matter. 

When a ridge or a U-boat base had been taken, a trench line 
broken through or a transportation junction captured, it was fairly 
easy to gauge the military gain; even the civilian felt he had some 
measure for judgment. But to judge the gain of a diplomatic offen- 
sive was a new problem ; the results were less tangible, the assurances 
less accepted. 

We no longer think in terms of hostages, sacked cities, enslaved 
prisoners, as tokens of security. But we cling to notions of invaded 
capitals and punitive war indemnities — such as rankled for forty 
years in the heart of France. Whatever the President's course with 
respect to the German overtures, it was to be expected that those 
who believed in these things, those who had had no understanding 
of his paralleling political offensive, those who had had no sympathy 
for his proposal of a league of nations as the keystone to a world 
safe for democracy, those who saw the only security for the future 
in reliance on individual national might buttressed by economic bar- 
riers, competitive armaments and universal military establishments 
— or in fighting alliances of such nations — would attack his course. 

But the President weighed other things than these attacks. He 
saw only less security in a whipped militarism, bound and gagged 
and biding its time, than he saw in an unrepentant militarism 
couched for a breathing spell behind a false front of reform. 

In his reply, he gave weight first to the tangible military secur- 
ities which the Allied command under Foch would define against 
any throwback of the German military machine a month hence or 
a decade hence. There was to be no risking safety there. He would 
not discard the military procedure for the political until the ends 
he sought were fully assured. He did not discard political procedure 
for the military merely because the ends seemed to be in sight. 
When it came to the less tangible political securities, he gave less 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 325 

weight to the weakening of German morale than to the emergence 
jof a new common purpose — the exact extent of the democratic 
/forces which seemingly had asserted themselves, their ability to 
f continue to do so, their durable superimposition upon the old dynas- 
tic, arbitrary, imperialistic scheme of control which had held them 
down and threatened all Europe. Rather he saw security in a new 
constitution of Germany, grounded at home in responsibility to the 
people, and held in a compact of free nations. 

British labor saw and understood and upheld his course — in its 
uncertain beginnings no less than in its masterful culmination; reg- 
istering its support at a time when the course the President took was 
violently attacked in many quarters on both sides of the Atlantic. 1 

At a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades 
Union Congress and the National Executive of the Labour Party on 
October 9 [1918] British labor issued a joint statement which said: 

The new peace offer from the government of the Central Empires 
creates a situation full of possibilities which the Allied peoples and 
governments cannot afford to ignore. The German proposal is made 
by a government which includes representatives of the majority 
parties in the Reichstag. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the 
offer is entitled to receive reasoned consideration. 

We frankly recognize that a further elucidation of these pro- 
posals is absolutely necessary before the military effort of the Allies 
can be checked. As an essential preliminary the Central Powers 
must withdraw their armies from all the occupied territory, and give 
a public and unequivocal declaration of their willingness to apply the 
principles formulated by President Wilson honestly and unreservedly 
to every question to be dealt with in the final settlement. Only by 
such preliminary measures, applying these principles, in President 
Wilson's words, "to substantive items which must constitute the body 
of any final settlement," can we have confidence in their will to 
peace and obtain the necessary guarantees that every issue raised at 
the peace conference will be discussed as a matter of justice and 
international right, rather than as a matter for bargain and com- 
promise between the several states. 

At the same time we urge the Allied governments to declare 
publicly and collectively that an unqualified acceptance of President 
Wilson's conditions, including the league of nations, would be the 
beginning of official negotiations for a general peace. We should 
thus have a joint definition of purpose and of agreement upon the 
basis of peace, which would make fruitful discussion possible. We 
hold, with the President of the United States, that such definition 
and agreement form an essential preliminary of negotiations between 

1 Samuel Gompers sent a public cable from Italy (October, 1918), as out 
of joint with the President's procedure as his earlier utterances had been 
out of joint with that of British labor. 



326 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

the warring governments. We share his view that the method of 
approach to the final settlement cannot be that of the Congress of 
Vienna, where the diplomatists secretly carved up the various coun- 
tries without reference either to the desires of the inhabitants or to 
the will of the nations for which they professed to act. 

The people have endured their grievous sufferings and borne 
their heavy burdens in the hope that the final settlement will be 
enduring peace and security for mankind. Within the framework 
of the war aims of the organized workers of the Allied nations, and 
the program of President Wilson, we believe such a peace can be 
erected upon a foundation of the self-determination of peoples. This 
principle must govern the discussion of every question of a terri- 
torial and political character dealt with at the peace conference. To 
ignore it can only result in an unprincipled compromise. Our gen- 
eration has been paying a heavy penalty because this principle has 
been violated or ignored in the peace settlements that have followed 
previous European wars. The present world struggle has resulted 
mainly from such violation of the right of small nations and of 
nationalities that have hitherto lacked cohesion and force to estab- 
lish their claim to live under forms of government of their own 
choosing. 

As representatives of the organized workers, we call upon the 
government to explore this new avenue open to peace with a single 
desire to ascertain whether it leads to the new international order 
and the general peace we can all unite to cherish and protect. 

THE OLD ORDER AND THE NEW 

Throughout the months of 19 17 and 19 18, when the American 
President was slowly enunciating the elements of what throughout 
Western Europe came to be known as the "Wilson policies" — the 
broad principles of a society of nations as against the old balance 
of power and war system, the projection of a new era of inter- 
national cooperation built on respect for nationality and the self- 
determination of peoples — the Pan-Germans were in full cry for the 
old order of individual might ruthlessly to be applied by them. 
They lost. But so long as their armies were successful in the field, 
the liberal forces within the Empires exhibited helplessness. 

With the change in the tide of battle, the democracy of the 
democratic nations came to the test. They had proved their ability 
to challenge, check and turn back the supreme embodiment of dynas- 
tic ambition and commercial imperialism working through the ma- 
chinery of militarism and autocracy. Would they, with German 
imperialism beaten, lay the fabric of a new era that should make 
the war seem worth its cost to the millions of families whose men 
had gone down in it? 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 327 

Throughout the months of 191 7 and 1918 when not only the 
American President, but British and Allied labor, were slowly enun- 
ciating their democratic scheme, the older diplomacy pitted against 
the Pan-Germans did not drop out of existence. What of the old 
commitments among the Allies to Italy, for example? They had 
never been officially waived. The division of Turkey as a field for 
national economic exploitation (as expressed in the secret treaties) 
had never been wholly abandoned in favor of autonomy for its 
several parts under international supervision; there had never been 
a complete disclaimer by any means of the Paris economic agree- 
ment; the agitation for a three-decker preferential tariff in the 
British empire — colonies first, Allies second, enemies third — had 
never been abandoned. The Sailor's Union and their propaganda of 
a 5-year boycott was in a sense but the personification of an eco- 
nomic war after the war. 

With the Allied armies forging ahead on the western front, these 
old desires flamed up, disclosing particularly lively embers. The 
speech-making of Premier Hughes, of Australia, at the Derby con- 
ference of the British Trades Union Congress was an effort under 
the guise of patriotism to dislodge the Labour Party as an obstruc- 
tion to the sweep of powerful interests in the economic life. 

Four if not five of the points made seriatim by the President in 
his September 2 7 address were directed at forces within the Allies — 
curbs against those things which to his mind would render a league 
of free nations impossible and go back to the old, insecure, burden- 
some, antagonistic scheme of things before the war. There was no 
mistaking his meaning when he said: 

It is of capital importance that we should also be explicitly agreed 
that no peace shall be obtained by any kind of compromise or abate- 
ment of the principles we have avowed as the principles for which 
we are fighting. There should exist no doubt about that. I am, 
therefore, going to take the liberty of speaking with the utmost 
frankness about the practical implications that are involved in it. 

If it be indeed and in truth the common object of the Govern- 
ments associated against Germany and of the nations whom they 
govern, as I believe it to be, to achieve by the coming settlements a 
secure and lasting peace, it will be necessary that all who sit down 
at the peace table shall come ready and willing to pay the price, 
the only price, that will procure it; and ready and willing, also, to 
create in some virile fashion the only instrumentality by which it 
can be made certain that the agreements of the peace will be hon- 
ored and fulfilled. 

That price is impartial justice in every item of the settlement, 
no matter whose interest is crossed; and not only impartial justice, 
but also the satisfaction of the several peoples whose fortunes are 



328 THE NEW ALIGNMENT 

dealt with. That indispensable instrumentality is a League of Na- 
tions formed under covenants that will be efficacious. Without such 
an instrumentality, by which the peace of the world can be guar- 
anteed, peace will rest in part upon the word of outlaws, and only 
upon that word. For Germany will have to redeem her character, 
not by what happens at the peace table but by what follows. 

And, as I see it, the constitution of that League of Nations and 
the clear definition of its objects must be a part, is in a sense the 
most essential part, of the peace settlement itself. It cannot be 
formed now. If formed now, it would be merely a new alliance 
confined to the nations associated against a common enemy. It is 
not likely that it could be formed after the settlement. It is neces- 
sary to guarantee the peace; and the peace cannot be guaranteed as 
an afterthought. The reason, to speak in plain terms again, why it 
must be guaranteed is that there will be parties to the peace whose 
promises have proved untrustworthy, and means must be found in 
connection with the peace settlement itself to remove that source of 
insecurity. It would be folly to leave the guarantee to the subse- 
quent voluntary action of the Governments we have seen destroy 
Russia and deceive Rumania. 

But these general terms do not disclose the whole matter. Some 
details are needed to make them sound less like a thesis and more 
like a practical program. These, then, are some of the partic- 
ulars, and I state them with the greater confidence because I can 
state them authoritatively as representing this government's inter- 
pretation of its own duty with regard to peace: 

First, the impartial justice meted out must involve no discrim- 
ination between those to whom we wish to be just and those to whom 
we do not wish to be just. It must be a justice that plays no 
favorites and knows no standard but the equal rights of the several 
peoples concerned; 

Second, no special or separate interest of any single nation or 
any group of nations can be made the basis of any part of the settle- 
ment which is not consistent with the common interest of all; 

Third, there can be no leagues or alliances or special covenants 
and understandings within the general and common family of the 
League of Nations; 

Fourth, and more specifically, there can be no special, selfish 
economic combinations within the league and no employment of any 
form of economic boycott or exclusion except as the power of 
economic penalty by exclusion from the markets of the world may 
be vested in the League of Nations itself as a means of discipline 
and control; 

Fifth, all international agreements and treaties of every kind 
must be made known in their entirety to the rest of the world. 

Special alliances and economic rivalries and hostilities have been 
the prolific source in the modern world of the plans and passions that 
produce war. It would be an insincere as well as an insecure peace 
that did not exclude them in definite and binding terms. 



DEMOCRACY COMES TO THE TEST 329 

The President had made himself the spokesman for the plain 
people of the Allied nations — people who had borne the heavy load 
of military resistance and who had hailed the new diplomacy — peo- 
ple who were not wedded to the old fetiches of conquest and who 
were fired by his vision of a new day. They were to reveal their 
support in demonstrations and mass meetings on his coming to 
France and England and Italy and he was to reach out to them, 
across official barriers, in utterances which served notice of their 
common aims. They were in turn to serve notice of their stub- 
born determination to "carry on" for a democratic international 
order, should one and all the statesmen fail at Versailles — in the 
resolutions passed on at the international labor and socialist con- 
ferences which were at length convened at Berne in February, 1919, 
and which demanded a council of representatives of peoples rather 
than of governments as basic to a league of nations, and common 
control over the machinery of war as essential to a "clean and 
lasting peace." 

The constitution of a world was at stake — in the settlement and 
in the years succeeding; and only the long range view of history 
will show how much, in the molding of that constitution, will be 
found to have been due to the building up in Western Europe, in 
the midst of the mistrust and bitterness of war, of a body of work- 
ers, British, French, Belgian, and Italian, socialist and trade union 
alike, whose dominant, organized power was neighbor to the Allied 
war chancellories and was a power for good; how much to the fact 
that their new and robust presence had come among the beribboned 
figures of diplomacy. 



PART IV 
WORKERS' CONTROL 



CHAPTER XXIV 

TOWARDS DEMOCRACY IN RECONSTRUCTION 

We have followed the course of British labor in the war to the 
armistice upon the battlefields and the gathering of the nations at 
Versailles, to the British elections and the break with the war coali- 
tion, to the transition from war work to reconstruction. 

The peace begins another epoch. The war witnessed the crash- 
ing down of the superstructures of the old. In the midst of it were 
laid the foundations of the new. Just as we as a nation shared only 
briefly and at the close in the inexorable strain of the conflict which 
reached from the grinding surfaces of the trenches far back to 
every rivet and strut of the social order, so we are less conscious of 
recoils which affect the whole fabric of European civilization now 
that the tension is removed. The changes while the war was on 
must needs have been momentous if we recognize its outcome as 
in great measure due, on the one hand, to the failure of centralized 
Prussian autocracy to carry enduring conviction among its coerced 
populations and, on the other hand, to the latent power for con- 
certed action among a loosely hung group of freer, self-willed peo- 
ples. These efforts of two conflicting schemes of political govern- 
ment, each to hold its own vantage ground and to match the special 
quality which its opponent possessed at the start, could not fail to 
provoke profound reactions on either hand. The swing toward re- 
publicanism, revolution and liberty in Germany and Austria-Hun- 
gary once the war was over predicates shiftings towards collectivism 
among the Allies, as far reaching if not so swift, and as fundamental, 
if not in kind. 

But more, we have been party to a struggle of endurance not 
between two opposed mechanisms, but between great groups of 
sentient human beings — to whose slow onward march the war was, 
at the start, an imperious interruption and, at the close, a great 
deliverance for democracy with its free choices and its blendings 
between old and new. 

In a time of change, certain master ideas ride a population and 
carry it far. Prince Kropotkin has said: — 

There are moments in the life of mankind when certain general 
ideas prepared by a slow evolution of the mind get hold with an 

333 



334 CONCLUSION 

unprecedented clearness of the great masses of man. Such a moment 
takes place now. 

The danger is that one shall write cautiously and seek to translate 
revolutionary force into terms of moderate social reform. To write 
tamely of great changes in prospect is as misleading as to write 
extravagantly of little ones achieved. Balanced and temperate state- 
ments of the coming reconstruction will not suffice to render the 
radical alteration which British labor demands. Labor feels that 
something prophetic is needed. From the ground up the remaking 
must be done. Europe is in ruins and cannot be tinkered. A 
restoration of the old society, with its institutions just as they stood 
before the war, is clearly impossible. That which has got into the 
minds of the people is that conscious control of life is possible. 

Our chapters have been concerned primarily with the months of 
191 8 in which British labor laid the political and economic macadam 
of its new street of to-morrow. We have retraced the crossways 
that led up to it through the earlier years of the war and seen them 
reaching back to the long rough cobbled road which a vast and 
vaster company of men and women have paced since the industrial 
revolution brought into being a new estate in Western Europe — 
made up of wage earners. 

We have endeavored to sketch in broad outline three manifesta- 
tions of the British labor movement in the midst of the war. They 
are all in the direction of an expansion of democracy — of the work- 
er's say in the governance of his work and of his nation and of 
the world. 

The modern industrial movement in Western Europe, the move- 
ment of the organized workers in trade unions, concerns itself with 
the organization of producers. Its area is the day's work. It 
begins with wages and hours, but it reaches out to a share in manage- 
ment. It claims that the producer must control production. It 
forecasts workers' control of industry: self-government in industry. 
It expressed itself afresh in wartime England in the shop stewards' 
committees, the spread of industrial unionism, the Triple Alliance, 
and the joint boards. Its extreme statement (which will not find 
acceptance in Great Britain) is French and Italian syndicalism, 
which would brush aside the state and conceivably might end in a 
tyranny of the strongest industrial group, or in an anarchy of con- 
tending trades. 

The modern political movement of labor in Western Europe 
concerns itself with the organization of voters. It functions through 
parliaments and local councils and boards. It deals primarily with 
man, the consumer, rather than with man, the producer. It there- 



TOWARDS DEMOCRACY IN RECONSTRUCTION 335 

fore is a territorial-geographical association (instead of a workshop 
association). The members of the association live together (in the 
industrial association they work together) . The political movement 
concerns itself with nationalization of the means of production, the 
division of the national product and the distribution of wealth. Its 
extreme statement (which will not find acceptance in Great Britain) 
is German state socialism which conceivably might stifle freedom in 
centralized organization. 

The British labor movement, driven on by the industrial impulse 
and the political impulse, alike, tends, in the phrase of the labor 
press, toward "ownership by the state and management by the 
workers." 

For the political impulse toward collectivism, the Labour Party 
is the custodian. Arthur Henderson is its engineer and Sidney 
Webb one of its interpreters. Webb not only gave constructive 
craftsmanship to the formulation of labor's foreign policies, but 
with Snowden — at the opposite pole on the war issue — fashioned 
its proposals for radical fiscal changes. But in the domestic field, 
while the reconstruction plan of the Labour Party is detailed and 
specific in its outline of legislative minima as protection against 
industrial abuses, it is all but bare of reference to the structure of 
industrial self-defense and self-government, shop by shop, district 
by district, industry by industry, to the same end. 

Sidney Webb is, in truth, making a last stand fight for the 
classic interpretation of industrial democracy, where the political 
state was to be sovereign, owning and conducting the forces of 
production, and where the unions were to be juniors in the presence 
of the bearded scientific expert. He tends to discount the new 
impulse toward workers' control in which the main drive is that 
labor is not to be a subordinate, but a partner. On the other hand, 
organized labor has come, as result of the tribunals set up by the 
war, to appreciate the value to itself of scientific method. In these 
tribunals the workers often found that they knew only the facts 
of their own shops or districts and turned increasingly to such 
authorities as Webb for the wider view. 

For the industrial impulse toward producers' control in industry, 
there is at present no one custodian. In its local manifestations, the 
shop stewards are forerunners, and in the words of one of the 
leading labor executives of England — himself a member of a gov- 
ernment tribunal — if a John the Baptist rose up among them they 
would sweep England. In the national manifestations of producers' 
control, Robert Smillie (of the miners), J. H. Thomas (of the 
railwaymen) and other industrial unionists are leaders; A. R. Orage, 
S. G. Hobson, G. D. H. Cole and others are its intellectual inter- 



336 CONCLUSION 

preters. These last have no direct immediate "following" of votes, 
but their ideas are helping to swing the labor movement more and 
more to the "left." They aim at a trade union congress (or, in 
their vocabulary, a National Guild Congress) which will be exec- 
utive and legislative for man, the producer, while Parliament will 
execute and legislate for man, the consumer. The state which the 
Guild-Socialists foresee will be a machinery half industrial, half 
political (or, in other terms, half on a functional, half on a geo- 
graphical basis). 

The political movement is ill-advised in under-estimating this 
industrial movement in its newest manifestations. Arthur Hender- 
son has never fully understood what David Kirkwood and the Clyde 
Workers' Committee were seeking to do. Some of the advocates 
of workers' control have an equal distrust of political methods for 
achieving their aims. This distrust is at times revealed in the 
writings, for example, of Cole and S. G. Hobson. The first labor 
members of Parliament failed to achieve the large things hoped for 
and the experience of the rank and file with labor members in the 
war government has been disillusioning. Political obstructions to 
labor will precipitate direct action industrially. 

It is probable that the course of British labor in its two-fold 
movement will depend on the adjustment of both impulses to a new 
and common resultant, just as in the slow movement toward political 
democracy the organizing faculty of the British people has built up 
an Empire, while with their ingrained love of personal freedom they 
have kept fast hold of local self-government. It is in the interplay 
of these two impulses that we have evidence that British labor is 
drawing on collectivism, but individualism as well, in endeavoring 
to strike a new balance between social control and liberty. 

As Arthur Henderson has said: — 

In opposition and presently, as we believe and hope, in office, 
labor will seek to build up a new order of society, rooted in equality, 
dedicated to freedom, governed on democratic principles. 

Thus, in the political field, the outstanding lesson of the war 
to the British worker is that life has been conscripted by the 
State; therefore, property can be conscripted by the State. The 
Labour Party believes that taxation of incomes and profits will 
not yield enough to free the country from its oppressive war debt, 
and that any attempt to tax food or the other necessities of life 
will be unjust and ruinous to the masses of the people. It, there- 
fore, demands that a graduated system of conscription of wealth 
shall be put into operation, to the end that capital shall cumulatively 
become an instrument of the common welfare. 



TOWARDS DEMOCRACY IN RECONSTRUCTION 337 

For the Labour Party would do more than put the accumula- 
tions of past generations into the war-pot along with the lives and 
liberties of this. It proposes to extend the wartime taxation of 
incomes, profits and inheritances in order to apply them in the name 
of the nation to the purposes of peace as they were applied in the 
name of the nation to the purposes of the war. It affirms that the 
land of the nation should belong to the nation, and it calls at once 
for the public absorption of the unearned increment of land values. 

It believes that the day is ending for political parties dominated 
by the owners of land and capital. As the economic structure of 
our time is defined by legislation and administration, British labor 
intends to play its part in the formulation of legislation and in the 
responsibilities of administration. There has been an immense 
increase during the war of industrial discipline under state control. 
If the state is to become the master, then the workers are deter- 
mined to exercise an increasing share of control in the state. 

"The cause of unrest," said a trade union official at Birming- 
ham, "is that we are trying to fight a great war and at the same 
time to preserve our individual liberties." And while the British 
Labour Party would, on the basis of wartime experience, devote 
the national surplus to the social welfare, retain the railways and 
other forms of common service in public hands, and expand the 
control and ownership of mines and raw materials, he would be 
a rash prophet who would assume that a labor regime would not 
leave wide areas for voluntary enterprise. Rather it aims at in- 
creased industrial initiative by freeing hoarded stores of wealth 
and untapped sources of energy to the community. It still em- 
ploys the verbiage of old days in its manifestos, for it has not yet 
created a language to fit its new conceptions. It was one of the 
jokes of the June conference of the Labour Party, which adopted the 
reconstruction plan, that Sidney Webb, who has spent his life in 
arguing for the socialization of wealth, pleaded on the floor of the 
convention for the minting of a new term ; but his efforts were swept 
under by the votes of trade unionists who preferred the old socialist 
phrases to unwonted ones for the things they were groping after. 

Similarly, the Labour Party holds that it is the duty of govern- 
ment to find suitable work for all, and, failing this, to provide 
maintenance for the workers. It has little patience with the notion 
that it is fear of starvation that makes the world go round ; it holds, 
rather, that premature work, overwork, undernourishment, unem- 
ployment slacken the world's production. But this does not mean 
that British labor favors a lethargic communism. The wartime or- 
ganization of Britain's man-power makes it believe that it is entirely 
possible to find work for all; the wartime leap forward in produc- 



338 CONCLUSION 

tivity makes it believe that not only is this possible but that an 
altogether new level of output and general prosperity can come into 
being. And not the least basis for its faith is its conviction that if 
men feel that they are working merely for their week's wages and 
the profits of private employers, one of the greatest motivations 
of all is neglected. When men worked in wartime England for the 
nation's cause, they put their backs into it. 

Underneath it all, British labor is determined to shake off bureau- 
cratic interference and regimentation, which the war has revealed 
as contrary to the fundamental instinct for individual liberty. La- 
bor will continue to oppose a rigid state socialism with devolution of 
function. Direct sovereignty over their own lives is the genius of 
the workers' control movement which parallels and tempers the polit- 
ical movement. It is a movement for status — for increasing, not 
decreasing, the muster of self-dependent Englishmen. 

The workers' control movement is not attempting to commandeer 
factories and put them into the hands of the workers, like the 
Russian Soviets. It is going ahead one step at a time, first admin- 
istering workshop conditions, then sharing in the management of 
the factory process. It is not trying to extemporize executive expe- 
rience over night. It acts inside its area of competence, but the 
change it is effecting in the organization of industry is fundamental. 
Just as, politically, British labor would not make a wholesale con-* 
scription of property, but nevertheless plans to nationalize the agri- 
cultural land, the mines and the railways, to conscript accumulated 
wealth on a graduated scale, and to tax income and profits, so indus- 
trially, British labor does not set out to take over the entire indus- 
trial process at one stroke. Rather, it gives challenge to the old 
conception which left autocratic power in the hands of one factor in 
production — the factor of private capital. This is a projection of 
self-determination in industrial life. It will find expression in no 
one formula, but will manifest itself experimentally in a hundred 
different forms whether under public or private ownership. It is, 
nonetheless, a decisive step toward the integration of economic self- 
government, by shops, districts and industries, that in time will 
fairly parallel the forms of civil government from town to nation. 

Here, in its turn, the political movement comes in as a tempering 
force, with its emphasis on the consumers' or national stake in indus- 
trial negotiation and arbitration. Under the government's Produc- 
tion Committee, the tribunals include the employers, labor leaders 
and the public. This is a divergence from old trade union practice 
when the case was threshed out jointly by employes and employers 
alone. Thus, under the old scheme there was nothing to prevent 
the entrepreneurs and the unions from rigging the public, In ship 



TOWARDS DEMOCRACY IN RECONSTRUCTION 339 

building plants, for example, the employers might yield to the de- 
mand of workers for increase in pay and tack it straightway onto 
the sale price. In wartime, this was of immediate national concern. 
It threw open the whole question of how far an industry could 
cover by economies and lessened profits, a wage increase without 
a price increase; or how far one given craft could by its monopoly 
position gouge the public. This danger is present in the Whitley 
councils ; which in turn have been subject to radical criticism as 
giving equal representation to small bodies of managers and great 
bodies of workers; an antagonistic, unstable and undemocratic 
equilibrium which the enhancement of the public's stake in indus- 
try would tend to offset and nationalization, as promoted by the 
miners, to overcome. 

The newer communal view is taking hold of the newer leader- 
ship in the union movement, and can be counted on to carry 
throughout the labor world, as against the older narrow craft view. 
It has manifested itself in concern for all the workers in other indus- 
tries, purchasers of the product, and for all the workers of the 
world. The new communal idea in labor policy asserts itself not 
only in the settlement of labor issues, but in the proposals for the 
nationalization of basic industries and common services. Charac- 
teristic, also, were the resolutions adopted by the British Labour 
Party in its wartime conferences, repudiating the Paris agreement. 
Lloyd George did not meet labor's point of view in his statement 
of December, 191 7, as it would have meant a break with dominant 
elements in the coalition. But neither did he support the Paris 
agreement in his statement of war aims. He omitted it in deference 
to the labor sentiment, which held that in the international field no 
less than at home, privilege must be subordinated to social welfare. 
Accordingly, labor called for democratic control over raw materials. 
It called for an international control over those weak and exploit- 
able territories which are the stakes of secret diplomacy. It de- 
manded that there should be no more dumping on the markets of 
the world of goods produced by sweated labor. And it took its stand 
against divisive trade alliances, boycotts and the perpetuation, in an 
economic war after the war, of the forces that had helped let the 
world in for this war. 

With the monopolistic craft type of mind tends to go support 
of the two party system of trade government (employers and em- 
ployees), the support of a protective tariff wall behind which they 
can jointly put up the prices of products and the wages of the 
craft to the disregard of the rest of the body of workers; the sup- 
port of schemes for trade harness and economic isolation of com- 
peting nations. Its adherents among British trade unionists lend 



340 CONCLUSION 

themselves to what J. A. Hobson calls Prussian- Australianism 1 — a 
"khaki" party of imperialism, of protective tariffs, colonial exploita- 
tion and state aided industries for the investor ; plus high wages and 
paternalistic schemes as bribes for the labor vote. 

Henceforth, says Hughes of Australia, the workman must labor 
at the plow, "with his sword strapped to the handle." British 
labor used its two-edged blade to break ground for an altogether 
different peace from that. 

In its wartime international policy, it steadfastly insisted on its 
principle of democratic appeal first to the common people of the 
Allies and then to the common people of the enemy. It formulated 
that appeal and laid it before the workers of the hostile countries. 
In building its inter-Allied program, labor worked out a new organ- 
ization. Efforts had been made to create a trade union inter- 
Allied conference. They failed. Efforts had been made to create 
a socialist inter-Allied conference. They, too, failed. Finally, 
cohesion was found by uniting the forces of the trade unions and the 
socialists in the Inter- Allied Labour and Socialist Conferences. It 
was in thus harmonizing the two active principles at work in the 
labor movement, industrial and political, that British organizers dis- 
played their leadership. 

The leaders of Britain held their people united through four 
years of war. France, waging a defensive warfare on its own soil, 
instinctively reacted as a unit against the invader. And the military 
power of Germany, drunk with victory and conquest of enemy ter- 
ritory, yet held up triumph to its people as a release from their 
ring of foes. But Britain's task was more difficult. Uninvaded and 
with few victories, she held united. Labor leadership shares in the 
credit for this long-enduring unity. It made the war one for 
fire ides as well as chancellories. The workers were at once backers 
of the war and forerunners of peace. 

They freed themselves from the vague internationalism of alien 
groups which tended to disregard the deep instinct for nationality, 
and at the same time they refused to permit the passions of war 
to divert them from their constructive program for an international 
order. They never blurred the issues of the struggle against Prus- 
sian aggression. But they were equally determined that military 
victory should not be used for territorial aggrandizement and the 
perpetuation of hate. It is the merit of the British and inter-Allied 
workers that during war they reached out beyond the war to the 
fellowship of free peoples. 

It was to this effect and in this even tone of justice that inter- 
Allied labor spoke to the nations of the world, and, in so speaking, 

1 "Democracy After the War," by J. A. Hobson. 



TOWARDS DEMOCRACY IN RECONSTRUCTION 341 

assured the common people of the enemy that they would not ex- 
change one oppression for another, if they overthrew their auto- 
cratic governments. 

J. W. Ogden, chairman of the Derby Trades Union Congress, 
said to his fellow delegates: — 

Let us lift our minds above the clouds of doubt, suspicion and 
dissension that have blurred our vision and warped our judgment, 
and in the higher, clearer and purer atmosphere we shall discern 
the true goal of our aspirations and ambitions. The industrial Ca- 
naan towards which we have wended so long and so laboriously, 
world brotherhood, may seem farther away to-day than ever. lit 
spite of that, I shall still look towards it as the salvation of the 
world, and the only hope of the workers. 

The British labor movement is an organic growth, which, like 
everything else in wartime England, has gone through in four years 
what would ordinarily have required twenty years. The spokesmen 
and programs of British labor do not voice class hatred. It shares 
with the government and with enlightened employers in creating 
constitutionalism in industry: a new spirit and a new machinery. 
Labor is developing something different from the old-time trade 
unionism (with its concentration on wages and hours) and the old- 
time class-conscious Socialism — broader than the one, freer than the 
other, typically British in its inconsistencies and in its downright 
competence. 

What baffled some American visitors in British labor is what 
baffles the elderly in the life of Europe to-day: the variety, the 
wealth of creative impulse, the hearty dissent from custom and 
tradition; the zest for challenging the very origins of belief, and 
for shaking the foundations of venerable institutions. 

It is an experimental attitude toward life. The spirit of its 
quest is springy and buoyant and impudent. An elan is being recap- 
tured, lost for one hundred years of the factory system. From the 
ranks of the returned soldiers and the mobilized shops, new leaders 
will spring up and they will be young. 

British labor cannot be charted off into tidy little thought forms. 
It is a living, growing, and moving thing. Its vitality spills over 
into many activities. To the observer it seems as unwieldy and top- 
heavy and split up as the British Commonwealth of which it is an 
ever-growing part. But under crisis it reveals the same inner cohe- 
rence as the British Commonwealth revealed under the strain of 
war. A community of spirit holds British labor together. Back of 
its machinery of action there is a profound belief. It is a belief 
in the worth of the individual. And this belief leads to the desire 
for founding a society where the common man will be at home. 



APPENDIX I 
STATEMENT OF WAR AIMS 

AS ADOPTED AT A JOINT CONFERENCE OF THE SOCIETIES AFFILIATED 
WITH THE BRITISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS AND THE BRITISH 
LABOUR PARTY AT CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, ON DECEMBER 
28, I917 

I. THE WAR 

The British Labour movement sees no reason to depart from 
the declaration unanimously agreed to at the Conference of 
the Socialist and Labour Parties of the Allied Nations on Feb- 
ruary 14, 191 5, and it reaffirms that declaration. Whatever 
may have been the causes of the outbreak of war, it is clear 
that the peoples of Europe, who are necessarily the chief suf- 
ferers from its horrors, had themselves no hand in it. Their 
common interest is now so to conduct the terrible struggle in 
which they find themselves engaged as to bring it, as soon 
as may be possible, to an issue in a secure and lasting peace 
for the world. 

2. MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY 

Whatever may have been the causes for which the war was 
begun, the fundamental purpose of the British Labour move- 
ment in supporting the continuance of the struggle is that the 
world may henceforth be made safe for democracy. 

Of all the war aims, none is so important to the peoples of 
the world as that there shall be henceforth on earth no more 
war. Whoever triumphs, the people will have lost unless some 
effective method of preventing war can be found. 

As means to this end, the British Labour movement relies 
very largely upon the complete democratisation of all countries ; 
on the frank abandonment of every form of Imperialism; on 

343 



344 APPENDIX I 

the suppression of secret diplomacy, and on the placing of 
foreign policy, just as much as home policy, under the control 
of popularly elected Legislatures; on the absolute responsibility 
of the Foreign Minister of each country to its Legislature; on 
such concerted action as may be possible for the universal aboli- 
tion of compulsory military service in all countries, the com- 
mon limitation of the costly armaments by which all peoples 
are burdened, and the entire abolition of profit-making arma- 
ment firms, whose pecuniary interest lies always in war scares 
and rivalry in preparation for war. 

But it demands, in addition, that it should be an essential part 
of the treaty of peace itself that there should be forthwith es- 
tablished a Supernational Authority, or League of Nations, 
which should not only be adhered to by all the present bel- 
ligerents, but which every other independent sovereign state in 
the world should be pressed to join; the immediate establish- 
ment of such League of Nations not only of an International 
High Court for the settlement of all disputes between states 
that are of justiciable nature, but also of appropriate ma- 
chinery for prompt and effective mediation between states at 
issue that are not justiciable; the formation of an Inter- 
national Legislature, in which the representatives of every 
civilised state would have their allotted share; the gradual 
development, as far as may prove to be possible, of interna- 
tional legislation agreed to by and definitely binding upon the 
several states, and for a solemn agreement and pledge by 
all states that every issue between any two or more of them 
shall be submitted for settlement as aforesaid, and that they 
will all make common cause against any state which fails to 
adhere to this agreement. 

3. TERRITORIAL ADJUSTMENTS 

The British Labour movement has no sympathy with the at- 
tempts made, now in this quarter and now in that, to convert 
this war into a war of conquest, whether what is sought to be 
acquired by force is territory or wealth, nor should the 
struggle be prolonged for a single day, once the conditions of a 
permanent peace can be secured, merely for the sake of ex- 
tending the boundaries of any state. 

But it is impossible to ignore the fact that, not only resti- 
tution and reparation, but also certain territorial readjustments 



APPENDIX I 34$ 

are required if a renewal of armaments and war is to be 
avoided. These readjustments must be such as can be arrived 
at by common agreement on the general principle of allowing 
all people to settle their own destinies, and for the purpose 
of removing any obvious cause of future international conflict. 

(a) Belgium 

The British Labour movement emphatically insists that a 
foremost condition of peace must be the reparation by the 
German Government, under the direction of an International 
Commission, of the wrong admittedly done to Belgium ; payment 
by that Government for all the damage that has resulted from 
this wrong, and the restoration of Belgium to complete and 
untrammelled independent sovereignty, leaving to the decision 
of the Belgian people the determination of their own future 
policy in all respects. 

(&) Alsace and Lorraine 

The British Labour movement reaffirms its reprobation of the 
crime against the peace of the world by which Alsace and 
Lorraine were forcibly torn from France in 1871, a political 
blunder the effects of which have contributed in no small degree 
to the continuance of unrest and the growth of militarism in 
Europe; and, profoundly sympathising with the unfortunate in- 
habitants of Alsace and Lorraine, who have been subjected to 
so much repression, asks in accordance with the declarations 
of the French Socialists that they shall be allowed under the 
protection of the Supernational Authority, or League of 
Nations, freely to decide what shall be their future political 
position. 

(c) The Balkans 

The British Labour movement suggests that the whole 
problem of the reorganisation of the administration of the peo- 
ples of the Balkan Peninsula might be dealt with by a Special 
Conference of their representatives, or by an authoritative In- 
ternational Commission, on the basis of (a) the complete free- 
dom of these people to settle their own destinies, irrespective 
of Austrian, Turkish, or other foreign dominion; (b) the in- 
dependent sovereignties of the several nationalities in those 
districts in which these are largely predominant; (c) the uni- 



346 APPENDIX I 

versal adoption of religious tolerance, the equal citizenship of 
all races, and local autonomy; (d) a Customs Union embrac- 
ing the whole of the Balkan States; and (e) the entry of all the 
Balkan National States into a Federation for the concerted ar- 
rangement by mutual agreement among themselves of all mat- 
ters of common concern. 

(d) Italy 

The British Labour movement declares its warmest sympathy 
with the people of Italian blood and speech who have been left 
outside the inconvenient and indefensible boundaries that have 
as a result of the diplomatic agreements of the past been assigned 
to the kingdom of Italy, and supports their claim to be united 
with those of their own race and tongue. It realises that ar- 
rangements may be necessary for securing the legitimate in- 
terests of the people of Italy in the adjacent seas, but it has 
no sympathy with the far-reaching aims of conquest of Italian 
imperialism, and believes that all legitimate needs can be safe- 
guarded without precluding a like recognition of the needs of 
others or an annexation of other peoples' territories. 

(e) Poland, etc. 

With regard to the other cases in dispute, from Luxem- 
bourg on the one hand, of which the independence has been 
temporarily destroyed, to the lands now under foreign domina- 
tion inhabited by other races — the outstanding example being 
that of the Poles — the British Labour movement relies, as the 
only way of achieving a lasting settlement, on the application 
of the principle of allowing each people to settle ks own 
destiny. 

(/) The Jews and Palestine 

The British Labour movement demands for the Jews of all 
countries the same elementary rights of tolerance, freedom 
of residence and trade, and equal citizenship that ought to be 
extended to all the inhabitants of every nation. But it further 
expresses the hope that it may be practicable by agreement 
among all the nations to set free Palestine from the harsh 
and oppressive government of the Turk, in order that the 
country may form a free state, under international guarantee, 
to which such of the Jewish people as desire to do so may re- 



APPENDIX I 347 

turn and may work out their own salvation, free from inter- 
ference by those of alien race or religion. 

(g) The Problem of the Turkish Empire 

The whole civilised world condemns the handing back to the 
universally execrated rule of the Turkish Government any 
subject people which has once been freed from it. Thus, what- 
ever may be proposed with regard to Armenia, Mesopotamia, 
and Arabia, they cannot be restored to the tyranny of the 
Sultan and his pashas. 

The British Labour movement disclaims all sympathy with the 
imperialist aims of governments and capitalists who would 
make of these and other territories now dominated by the 
Turkish hordes merely instruments either of exploitation or 
militarism. If in these territories it is impracticable to leave 
it to the peoples to settle their own destinies, the British Labour 
movement insists that, conformably with the policy of "no an- 
nexations," they should be placed for administration in the 
hands of a commission acting under the Supernational Au- 
thority or League of Nations. It is further suggested that the 
peace of the world requires that Constantinople should be 
made a free port, permanently neutralised, and placed (to- 
gether with both shores of the Dardanelles and possibly some 
or all of Asia Minor) under the same impartial administration. 

(h) The Colonies of Tropical Africa 

With regard to the colonies of the several belligerents in 
tropical Africa from sea to sea — whether including all north 
of the Zambesi River and south of the Sahara Desert, or only 
those lying between 15 degrees north and 15 degrees south 
latitude, which are already the subject of international control 
— the British Labour movement disclaims all sympathy with the 
imperialist idea that these should form the booty of any na- 
tion, should be exploited for the profit of the capitalist, or 
should be used for the promotion of the militarist aims of 
governments. In view of the fact that it is impracticable here 
to leave the various peoples concerned to settle their own 
destinies, it is suggested that the interests of humanity would be 
best served by the full and frank abandonment by all the 
belligerents of any dreams of an African empire; the trans- 



348 APPENDIX I 

fer of the present colonies of the European Powers in tropical 
Africa, however the limits of this area may be defined, to the 
proposed Supernational Authority or League of Nations herein 
suggested, and their administration under the legislative coun- 
cil of that authority as a single, independent African state, 
with its own trained staff, on the principles of (i) taking ac- 
count in each locality of the wishes of the people when these 
can be ascertained; (2) protection of the natives against ex- 
ploitation and oppression and the preservation of their tribal 
interests; (3) all revenues raised to be expended for the wel- 
fare and development of the African state itself, and (4) the 
permanent neutralisation of this African state and its abstention 
from participation in international rivalries or any future wars. 

(I) Other Cases 

The British Labour movement suggests that any other terri- 
tories in which it is proposed that the future safeguarding of 
pacific relations makes necessary a transfer of sovereignty 
should be made the subject of amicable bargaining, with an 
equivalent exchange, in money or otherwise. 

4. ECONOMIC RELATIONS 

The British Labour movement declares against all the pro- 
jects now being prepared by Imperialists and capitalists, not 
in any one country only, but in most countries, for an economic 
war after peace has been secured, either against one or other 
foreign nation, or against all foreign nations, as such an eco- 
nomic war, if begun by any country, would inevitably lead to 
reprisals, to which each nation in turn might in self-defence 
be driven. 

It realises that all such attempts at economic aggression, 
whether by protective tariffs or capitalist trusts or monopolies, 
inevitably result in the spoliation of the working classes of the 
several countries for the profit of the capitalists; and the 
British workmen see in the alliance between the military Im- 
perialists and the fiscal Protectionists in any country whatso- 
ever, not only a serious danger to the prosperity of the masses 
of the people, but also a grave menace to peace. 

On the other hand, if unfortunately a genuine peace cannot 
be secured, the right of each nation to the defence of its own 
economic interests, and, in face of the world shortage herein- 



APPENDIX I 349 

after mentioned, to the conservation for its own people of a 
sufficiency of its own supplies of foodstuffs and raw material 
cannot be denied. 

The British Labour movement accordingly urges upon the 
Labour parties of all countries the importance of insisting, in 
the attitude of the Government towards commercial enter- 
prises, along with the necessary control of supplies for its own 
people, on the principle of the open door, on customs duties 
being limited strictly to revenue purposes, and on there being no 
harsh discrimination against foreign countries. But it urges 
equally the importance, not merely of conservation, but also of 
the utmost possible development by appropriate Government 
action of the resources of every country for the benefit not only 
of its own people, but also of the world, and the need for an 
international agreement for the enforcement in all countries of 
the legislation on factory conditions, hours of labour, and the 
prevention of sweating and unhealthy trades necessary to pro- 
tect the workers against exploitation and oppression. 

5. THE PROBLEMS OF PEACE 

To make the world safe for democracy involves much more 
than the prevention of war, either military or economic. It 
will be a device of the capitalist interests to pretend that the 
treaty of peace need concern itself only with the cessation 
of the struggle of the armed forces and with any necessary ter- 
ritorial readjustments. The British Labour movement insists 
that in view of the probable world-wide shortage after the 
war of exportable foodstuffs and raw materials, and of 
merchant shipping, it is imperative, in order to prevent the 
most serious hardships and even possible famine, in one country 
or another, that systematic arrangements should be made on 
an international basis for the allocation and conveyance of the 
available exportable surpluses of these commodities to the dif- 
ferent countries in proportion not to their purchasing powers, 
but to their several pressing needs, and that within each 
country the Government must for some time maintain its con- 
trol of the most indispensable commodities in order to secure 
their appropriation, not in a competitive market mainly to the 
richer classes in proportion to their means, but systematically 
to meet the most urgent needs of the whole community on the 
principle of "No cake for any one until all have bread." 



35 o APPENDIX I 

Moreover, it cannot but be anticipated that in all countries 
the dislocation of industry attendant on peace, the instant dis- 
charge of millions of munition workers and workers in war 
trades, and the demobilisation of soldiers — in face of the scarcity 
of industrial capital, the shortage of raw materials, and the 
insecurity of commercial enterprise — will, unless prompt and 
energetic action be taken by the several Governments, plunge 
a large part of the wage-earning population into all the miseries 
of unemployment more or less prolonged. In view of the fact 
that widespread unemployment in any country, like a famine, 
is an injury not to that country alone, but impoverishes also the 
rest of the world, the British Labour movement holds that it is 
the duty of every government to take immediate action, not 
merely to relieve the unemployment when unemployment has 
set in, but actually, so far as may be practicable to prevent 
the occurrence of unemployment. 

It therefore urges upon the Labour Parties of every country 
the necessity of their pressing upon their governments the 
preparation of plans for the execution of all the innumerable 
public works (such as the making and repairing of roads and 
railways, the erection of schools and public buildings, the 
provision of working class dwellings, and the reclamation and 
afforestation of land) that will be required in the near future, 
not for the sake of finding measures of relief for the unem- 
ployed, but with a view to these works being undertaken at 
such a rate in each locality as will suffice, together with the 
various capitalist enterprises that may be in progress, to 
maintain at a fairly uniform level year by year, and through- 
out each year, the aggregate demand for labour, and thus pre- 
vent there being any unemployed. It is now known that in 
this way it is quite possible for any government to prevent, if 
it chooses, the very occurrences of any widespread or pro- 
longed involuntary unemployment, which, if it is now in any 
country allowed to occur, is as much the result of government 
neglect as is any epidemic disease. 

6. RESTORATION AND REPARATION 

The British Labour movement holds that one of the most 
imperative duties of all governments immediately peace is de- 
clared will be the restoration, so far as may be possible, of 
the homes, farms, factories, public buildings, and means of 



APPENDIX I 351 

communication in France, Belgium, Tyrol and North Italy, 
East Prussia, Poland, Galicia, Russia, Rumania, the Balkans, 
Greece, Armenia, Asia Minor, and Central Africa, that the 
restoration should not be limited to compensation for public 
buildings, capitalist undertakings, and material property proved 
to be destroyed or damaged, but should be extended to setting 
up wage earners and peasants themselves in homes and em- 
ployments, and that to insure the full and impartial application 
of these principles the assessment and distribution of the com- 
pensation so far as the cost is contributed by any international 
fund should be made under the direction of an international 
commission. 

But the British Labour movement will not be satisfied unless 
there is a full and free judicial investigation into the accusa- 
tions so freely made on all sides that particular governments 
have ordered, and particular officers have exercised, acts of 
cruelty, oppression, violence and theft against individual vic- 
tims for which no justification can be found in the ordinary 
usages of war. It draws attention in particular to the loss of 
life and property of merchant seamen and other non-com- 
batants (including women and children) resulting from this 
inhuman and ruthless conduct. 

It should be part of the conditions of peace that there should 
be forthwith set up a court of claims and accusations, which 
should investigate all such allegations as may be brought before 
it, summon the accused person or government to answer the 
complaint, to pronounce judgment and award compensation or 
damages, payable by the individual or government condemned, 
to the persons who had suffered wrong, or to their dependents. 
The several governments must be responsible, financially and 
otherwise, for the presentation of the cases of their respective 
nationals to such a court of claims and accusations. 



APPENDIX II 
MEMORANDUM ON WAR AIMS 

AGREED UPON AT THE INTER-ALLIED LABOUR AND SOCIALIST CON- 
FERENCE, CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, LONDON, S. W., FEB- 
RUARY 20-24, I918 

I. THE WAR 

The Conference declares that whatever may have been the 
cause of the outbreak of war, it is clear that the peoples of 
Europe, who are necessarily the chief sufferers from its hor- 
rors, had themselves no hand in it. 

The Conference sees no reason to depart from the following 
declaration unanimously agreed to at the Conference of the 
Socialist and Labour Parties of the Allied Nations on Feb- 
ruary 14th, 1 91 5: — 

"This Conference cannot ignore the profound general causes 
of the European conflict, itself a monstrous product of the 
antagonisms which tear asunder capitalist society and the ag- 
gressive policy of colonialism and imperialism, against which 
International Socialism has never ceased to fight, and in which 
every Government has its share of responsibility. 

"The invasion of Belgium and France by the German armies 
threatens the very existence of independent nationalities, and 
strikes a blow at all faith in treaties. In these circumstances a 
victory for German Imperialism would be the defeat and the 
destruction of democracy and liberty in Europe. The Socialists 
of Great Britain, Belgium, France, Italy, 1 and Russia do not 
pursue the political and economic crushing of Germany; they 
are not at war with the peoples, but only with the Governments 
by which they are oppressed. They demand that Belgium 
shall be liberated and compensated. They demand that the 
question of Poland shall be settled in accordance with the 

1 The word "Italy" was added February 24th, 1918, at the request 
of the Italian delegation. 

352 



APPENDIX II 353 

wfshes of the Polish people, either in the sense of autonomy 
in the midst of another State, or in that of complete inde- 
pendence. They demand that throughout all Europe, from 
Alsace-Lorraine to the Balkans, those populations that have 
been annexed by force shall receive the right freely to dis- 
pose of themselves. 

"While inflexibly resolved to fight until victory is achieved to 
accomplish this task of liberation, the Socialists are none the 
less resolved to resist any attempt to transform this defensive 
war into a war of conquest, which would only prepare fresh 
conflicts, create new grievances, and subject various peoples 
more than ever to the double plague of armaments and war. 

"Convinced that they are remaining true to the principles of 
the International, the members of the Conference express the 
hope that the working classes of all the different countries, 
recognising the identity of their fundamental interests, will be- 
fore long find themselves united again in their struggle against 
militarism and capitalist Imperialism. The victory of the Al- 
lied Powers must be a victory for popular liberty, for unity, 
independence, and autonomy of the nations in the peaceful 
Federation of the United States of Europe and the world." 

2. MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY 

Whatever may have been the objects for which the War was 
begun, the fundamental purpose of the Conference in support- 
ing the continuance of the struggle is that the world may hence- 
forth be made safe for Democracy. Of all the conditions of 
Peace none is so important to the peoples of the world as that 
there should be henceforth on earth no more War. 

Whoever triumphs, the peoples will have lost unless an inter- 
national system is established which will prevent war. It 
would mean nothing to declare the right of peoples to self-de- 
termination if this right were left at the mercy of new viola- 
tions, and was not protected by a Supernational Authority. 
That authority can be no other than the League of Nations, 
which not only all the present belligerents, but every other in- 
dependent state, should be pressed to join. 

The constitution of such a League of Nations implies the 
immediate establishment of an International High Court, not 
only for the settlement of all disputes between states that 
are of justiciable nature, but also for prompt and effective 



354 APPENDIX II 

mediation between states in other issues that vitally interest the 
power or honour of such states. It is also under the con- 
trol of the League of Nations that the consultation of peo- 
ples for purposes of self-determination must be organised. 
This popular right can be vindicated only by popular vote. The 
League of Nations shall establish the procedure of international 
jurisdiction, fix the methods which will guarantee a free and 
genuine election, restore the political rights of individuals 
which violence and conquest may have injured, repress any 
attempt to use pressure or corruption, and prevent any sub- 
sequent reprisals. It will be also necessary to form an Inter- 
national Legislature in which the representatives of every 
civilised state would have their allotted share, and energetically 
push forward, step by step, the development of International 
Legislation agreed to by and definitely binding upon the 
several states. 

By a solemn agreement all the states and peoples consulted 
shall pledge themselves to submit every issue between two or 
more of them to arbitration as aforesaid. Refusal to accept 
arbitration or to submit to the settlement will imply deliberate 
aggression, and all the nations will necessarily have to make 
common cause, by using any and every means at their dis- 
posal, either economic or military, against any state or states 
refusing to submit to the arbitration award, or attempting to 
break the world's covenant of peace. 

But the sincere acceptance of the rules and decisions of the 
Supernational Authority implies the complete democratisation 
in all countries; the removal of all the arbitrary powers who 
until now have assumed the right of choosing between peace 
and war; the maintenance or creation of legislatures elected 
by and intended to express the sovereign right of the people; 
the suppression of secret diplomacy, to be replaced by the con- 
duct of foreign policy under the control of popular legislatures, 
and the publication of all treaties, which must never be in con- 
travention of the stipulations of the League of Nations, with 
the absolute responsibility of the Government, and more par- 
ticularly of the Foreign Minister, of each country to its 
Legislature. 

Only such a policy will enforce the frank abandonment of 
every form of Imperialism. When based on universal democ- 
racy, in a world in which effective international guarantees 
against aggression have been secured, the League of Nations 



APPENDIX II 355 

will achieve the complete suppression of force as the means of 
settling international differences. 

The League of Nations, in order to prepare for the con- 
certed abolition of compulsory military service in all countries, 
must first take steps for the prohibition of fresh armaments on 
land and sea, and for the common limitation of the existing 
armaments by which all the peoples are already overburdened; 
as well as the control of war manufactures and the enforce- 
ment of such agreements as may be agreed to thereupon. The 
state must undertake such manufactures themselves, so as 
entirely to abolish profit-making armament firms, whose pe- 
cuniary interest lies always in the war scares and progressive 
competition in the preparation for war. 

The nations, being armed solely for self-defence and for 
such action as the League of Nations may ask them to take in 
defence of international right, will be left free, under in- 
ternational control, either to create a voluntarily recruited 
force or to organise the nation for defence without profes- 
sional armies for long terms of military service. 

To give effect to the above principles, the Conference de- 
clares that the rules upon which the League of Nations will 
be founded must be included in the Treaty of Peace, and will 
henceforward become the basis of the settlement of differences. 
In that spirit the Conference expresses its agreement with the 
propositions put forward by President Wilson in his last mes- 
sage : — 

1st. That each part of the final settlement must be based 
upon the essential justice of that particular case and upon such 
adjustments as are most likely to bring a peace that will be 
permanent ; 

2nd. That peoples and provinces are not to be bartered 
about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels 
and pawns in a game, even the great game now for ever dis- 
credited of the balance of power ; but that 

3rd. Every territorial settlement involved in this War must 
be made in the interest and for the benefit of the populations 
concerned, and not as a part of any mere adjustment or com- 
promise of claims among rival states; and 

4th. That all well-defined national aspirations shall be ac- 
corded the utmost satisfaction that can be accorded them with- 
out introducing new or perpetuating old elements of discord 



356 APPENDIX II 

and antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace 
of Europe, and consequently of the world. 

3. TERRITORIAL QUESTIONS 

The Conference considers that the proclamation of principles 
of international law accepted by all nations, and the sub- 
stitution of a regular procedure for the forceful acts by which 
states calling themselves sovereign have hitherto adjusted their 
differences — in short, the establishment of a League of Na- 
tions — gives an entirely new aspect to territorial problems. 

The old diplomacy and the yearnings after domination by 
states, or even by peoples, which during the whole of the 19th 
century have taken advantage of and corrupted the aspira- 
tions of nationalities, have brought Europe to a condition of 
anarchy and disorder which have led inevitably to the present 
catastrophe. 

The Conference declares it to be the duty of the Labour 
and Socialist Movement to suppress without hesitation the Im- 
perialist designs in the various States which, even in this war, 
have led one Government after another to seek, by the triumph 
of military force, to acquire either new territories or economic 
advantages. 

The establishment of a system of international law, and the 
guarantees afforded by a League of Nations, ought to re- 
move the last excuse for those strategic protections which na- 
tions have hitherto felt bound to require. 

It is the supreme principle of the right of each people to de- 
termine its own destiny that must now decide what steps should 
be taken by way of restitution or reparation, and whatever ter- 
ritorial readjustments may be found to be necessary at the 
close of the present War. 

The Conference accordingly emphasises the importance to 
the Labour and Socialist Movement of a clear and exact defini- 
tion of what is meant by the right of each people to determine 
its own destiny. Neither unity of race nor identity of lan- 
guage can be regarded as affording more than a presumption in 
favour of federation or unification. During the 19th century 
theories of this kind have so often served as a cloak for ag- 
gression that the International cannot but seek to prevent any 
recurrence of such an evil. Any adjustments of boundaries 



APPENDIX II 357 

that become necessary must be based exclusively upon the 
desire of the people concerned. 

It is true that it is impossible for the necessary consultation 
of the desires of the people concerned to be made in any fixed 
and invariable way for all the cases in which it is required, and 
that the problems of nationality and territory are not the same 
for the inhabitants of all countries. Nevertheless, what is 
necessary in all cases is that the procedure to be adopted 
should be decided, not by one of the parties to the dispute, but 
by the Supernational Authority. 

Upon the basis of the general principles herein formulated 
the Conference proposes the following solutions of particular 
problems : — 

(a) Belgium 

The Conference emphatically insists that a foremost condi- 
tion of Peace must be the reparation by the German Govern- 
ment, under the direction of an International Commission, of 
the wrong admittedly done to Belgium; payment by that 
Government for all the damage that has resulted from this 
wrong; and the restoration of Belgium as an independent 
Sovereign State, leaving to the decision of the Belgian people 
the determination of their own future policy in all respects. 

(b) Alsace and Lorraine 

The Conference declares that the problem of Alsace and 
Lorraine is not one of territorial adjustment, but one of right, 
and thus an international problem the solution of which is in- 
dispensable if Peace is to be either just or lasting. 

The Treaty of Frankfort at one and the same time mutilated 
France and violated the right of the inhabitants of Alsace 
and Lorraine to dispose of their own destinies, a right which 
they have repeatedly claimed. 

The new Treaty of Peace, in recognising that Germany, by 
her declaration of war of 1914, has herself broken the Treaty 
of Frankfort, will make null and void the gains of a brutal 
conquest and of the violence committed against the people. 

France, having secured this recognition, can properly agree 
to a fresh consultation of the population of Alsace and Lor- 
raine as to its own desires. 

The Treaty of Peace will bear the signatures of every na- 



358 APPENDIX II 

tion in the world. It will be guaranteed by the League of 
Nations. To this League of Nations France is prepared to re- 
mit, with the freedom and integrity of a popular vote, of which 
the details can be subsequently settled, the organisation of such 
a consultation as shall settle for ever, as a matter of right, the 
future destiny of Alsace and Lorraine, and as shall finally re- 
move from the common life of all Europe a quarrel which has 
imposed so heavy a burden upon it. 

(c) The Balkans 

The Conference lays down the principle that all the violations 
and perversions of the rights of the people which have taken 
place, or are still taking place, in the Balkans must be made the 
subject of redress or reparation. 

Serbia, Montenegro, Rumania, Albania, and all the territories 
occupied by military force should be evacuated by the hostile 
forces. Wherever any population of the same race and tongue 
demands to be united this must be done. Each such people 
must be accorded full liberty to settle its own destiny, without 
regard to the imperialist pretensions of Austria-Hungary, 
Turkey, or other State. 

Accepting this principle, the Conference proposes that the 
whole problem of the administrative reorganisation of the 
Balkan peoples should be dealt with by a special conference 
of their representatives or in case of disagreement by an 
authoritative international commission on the basis of (a) the 
concession within each independent sovereignty of local auton- 
omy and security for the development of its particular civilisa- 
tion of every racial minority; (&) the universal guarantee of 
freedom of religion and political equality for all races; (c) 
a Customs and Postal Union embracing the whole of the 
Balkan States, with free access for each to its natural sea- 
port; (d) the entry of all the Balkan States into a Federation 
for the concerted arrangement by mutual agreement among 
themselves of all matters of common interest. 

(d) Italy 

The Conference declares its warmest sympathy with the peo- 
ple of Italian blood and speech who have been left outside the 
boundaries that have, as a result of the diplomatic agree- 



APPENDIX II 359 

ments of the past, and for strategic reasons, been assigned to 
the Kingdom of Italy, and supports their claim to be united 
with those of their own race and tongue. It realises that 
arrangements may be necessary for securing the legitimate in- 
terests of the people of Italy in the adjacent seas, but it con- 
demns the aims of conquest of Italian Imperialism, and believes 
that all legitimate needs can be safeguarded, without precluding 
a like recognition of the needs of others or annexation of other 
people's territories. 

Regarding the Italian population dispersed on the Eastern 
shores of the Adriatic, the relations between Italy and the 
Yugo-Slav populations must be based on principles of equity 
and conciliation, so as to prevent any cause of future quarrel. 

If there are found to be groups of Slavonian race within the 
newly defined Kingdom of Italy, or groups of Italian race in 
Slavonian territory, mutual guarantees must be given for the 
assurance of all of them, on one side or the other, full liberty 
of local self-government and of the natural development of 
their several activities. 

(e) Poland and the Baltic Provinces 

In accordance with the right of every people to determine 
its own destinies, Poland must be reconstituted in unity and 
independence with free access to the sea. 

The Conference declares further that any annexation by 
Germany, whether open or disguised, of Esthonia, Livonia, 
Courland, or Lithuania would be a flagrant and wholly inad- 
missible violation of international law. 

(/) The Jews and Palestine 

The Conference demands for the Jews in all countries the 
same elementary rights of freedom of religion, education, 
residence and trade and equal citizenship that ought to be 
extended to all the inhabitants of every nation. It further 
expresses the opinion that Palestine should be set free from 
the harsh and oppressive government of the Turk, in order that 
this country may form a Free State, under international guar- 
antee, to which such of the Jewish people as desire to do 
so may return and may work out their own salvation free from 
interference by those of alien race or religion. 



3 6o APPENDIX II 

(g) The Problem of the Turkish Empire 

The Conference condemns the handing back to the system- 
atically violent domination of the Turkish Government any 
subject people. Thus, whatever may be proposed with regard 
to Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Arabia, they cannot be restored 
to the tyranny of the Sultan and his Pashas. The Conference 
condemns the Imperialist aims of governments and capitalists 
who would make of these and other territories now dominated 
by the Turkish hordes merely instruments either of exploita- 
tion or militarism. If the peoples of these territories do not 
feel themselves able to settle their own destinies, the Con- 
ference insists that, conformably with the policy of "no an- 
nexations," they should be placed for administration in the 
hands of a Commission acting under the Supernational Author- 
ity or League of Nations. It is further suggested that the 
peace of the world requires that the Dardanelles should be 
permanently and effectively neutralised and opened like all the 
main lines of marine communication, under the control of the 
League of Nations, freely to all nations without hindrance or 
customs duties. 

(h) Austria-Hungary 

The Conference does not propose as a War Aim dismember- 
ment of Austria-Hungary or its deprivation of economic access 
to the sea. On the other hand, the Conference cannot admit 
that the claims to independence made by the Czecho-Slovaks 
and the Yugo-Slavs must be regarded merely as questions 
for internal decision. National independence ought to be ac- 
corded, according to rules to be laid down by the League of 
Nations, to such peoples as demand it, and these communities 
ought to have the opportunity of determining their own group- 
ings and federations according to their affinities and their in- 
terests. If they think fit they are free to substitute a free 
federation of Danubian States for the Austro-Hungarian 
Empire. 

(i) The Colonies and Dependencies 

The International has always condemned the Colonial policy 
of capitalist governments. Without ceasing to condemn it, the 
Inter-Allied Conference nevertheless recognises the existence of 
a state of things which it is obliged to take into account. 



APPENDIX II 361 

The Conference considers that the treaty of peace ought to 
secure to the natives in all colonies and dependencies effective 
protection against the excesses of capitalist colonialism. The 
Conference demands the concession of administrative autonomy 
for all groups of people that attain a certain degree of civilisa- 
tion, and for all others a progressive participation in local 
government. 

The Conference is of opinion that the return of the colonies 
to those who possessed them before the war, or the exchanges 
or compensations which might be effected, ought not to be 
an obstacle to the making of peace. 

Those colonies that have been taken by conquest from any 
belligerent must be made the subject of special consideration at 
the Peace Conference, in which the communities in their neigh- 
bourhood will be entitled to take part. But the treaty of peace 
on this point must secure economic equality in such territories 
for the peoples of all nations, and thereby guarantee that none 
is shut out from legitimate access to raw materials, prevented 
from disposing of its own products, or deprived of its proper 
share of economic development. 

As regards more especially the colonies of all the belligerents 
in Tropical Africa, from sea to sea, including the whole of the 
region north of the Zambesi and south of the Sahara, the 
Conference condemns any imperialist idea which would make 
these countries the booty of one or several nations, exploit them 
for the profit of the capitalist, or use them for the promotion 
of the militarist aims of the Governments. 

With respect to these colonies, the Conference declares in 
favour of a system of control, established by international 
agreement under the League of Nations and maintained by its 
guarantee, which, whilst respecting national sovereignty, would 
be alike inspired by broad conceptions of economic freedom 
and concerned to safeguard the rights of the natives under 
the best conditions possible for them, and in particular: — 

1. It would take account in each locality of the wishes 
of the people, expressed in the form which is possible to 
them. 

2. The interest of the native tribes as regards the owner- 
ship of the soil would be maintained. 

3. The whole of the revenues would be devoted to the 
well-being and development of the colonies themselves. 



362 APPENDIX II 

4. ECONOMIC RELATIONS 

The Conference is of opinion that the main lines of marine 
communication should be open without hindrance to vessels of 
all nations under the protection of the League of Nations. It 
declares against all the projects now being prepared by Im- 
perialists and capitalists, not in any one country only, but in 
most countries, for an Economic War, after Peace has been 
secured, either against one or other foreign nation or against 
all foreign nations, as such an Economic War, if begun by any 
country, would inevitably lead to reprisals, to which each nation 
in turn might in self-defence be driven. The Conference real- 
ises that all attempts at economic aggression, whether by Pro- 
tective Tariffs or capitalist trusts or monopolies, inevitably 
result in the spoliation of the working classes of the several 
countries for the profit of the capitalists ; and the working class 
see in the alliance between the Military Imperialists and the 
Fiscal Protectionists in any country whatsoever not only a 
serious danger to the prosperity of the masses of the people, 
but also a grave menace to Peace. On the other hand, the 
right of each nation to the defence of its own economic interests, 
and, in face of the world-shortage hereinafter mentioned, to the 
conservation for its own people of a sufficiency of its own sup- 
plies of foodstuffs and raw materials, cannot be denied. The 
Conference accordingly urges upon the Labour and Socialist 
Parties of all countries the importance of insisting, in the 
attitude of the Government towards commercial enterprise, 
along with the necessary control of supplies for its own people, 
on the principle of the open door, and without hostile discrimin- 
ation against foreign countries. But it urges equally the im- 
portance, not merely of conservation, but also of the utmost 
possible development by appropriate Government action of the 
resources of every country for the benefit not only of its own 
people, but also of the world, and the need for an international 
agreement for the enforcement in all countries of the legisla- 
tion on factory conditions, a maximum eight-hour day, the 
prevention of "sweating" and unhealthy trades necessary to 
protect the workers against exploitation and oppression, and 
the prohibition of night work by women and children. 

5. THE PROBLEMS OF PEACE 

To make the world safe for Democracy involves much more 
than the prevention of war, either military or economic. It will 



APPENDIX II 363 

be a device of the capitalist interests to pretend that the Treaty 
of Peace need concern itself only with the cessation of the 
struggles of the armed forces and with any necessary territorial 
readjustments. The Conference insists that, in view of the 
probable world-wide shortage, after the War, of exportable 
foodstuffs and raw materials, and of merchant shipping, it is 
imperative, in order to prevent the most serious hardships, and 
even possible famine, in one country or another, that systematic 
arrangements should be made on an international basis, for the 
allocation and conveyance of the available exportable surpluses 
of these commodities to the different countries, in proportion, 
not to their purchasing powers, but to their several pressing 
needs ; and that, within each country, the Government must for 
some time maintain its control of the most indispensable com- 
modities, in order to secure their appropriation, not in a com- 
petitive market mainly to the richer classes in porportion to 
their means, but, systematically, to meet the most urgent needs 
of the whole community on the principle of "no cake for any 
one until all have bread." 

Moreover, it cannot but be anticipated that, in all countries, 
the dislocation of industry attendant on Peace, the instant dis- 
charge of millions of munition makers and workers in War 
trades, and the demobilisation of millions of soldiers — in face of 
the scarcity of industrial capital, the shortage of raw materials, 
and the insecurity of commercial enterprise — will, unless prompt 
and energetic action be taken by the several Governments, 
plunge a large part of the wage-earning population into all the 
miseries of unemployment more or less prolonged. In view of 
the fact that widespread unemployment in any country, like a 
famine, is an injury not to that country alone, but impoverishes 
also the rest of the world, the Conference holds that it is the 
duty of every Government to take immediate action, not merely 
to relieve the unemployed, when unemployment has set in, but 
actually, so far as may be practicable, to prevent the occurrence 
of unemployment. It therefore urges upon the Labour and 
Socialist Parties of every country the necessity of their press- 
ing upon their Governments the preparation of plans for the 
execution of all the innumerable public works (such as the 
making and repairing of roads, railways, and waterways, the 
erection of schools and public buildings, the provision of work- 
ing-class dwellings, and the reclamation and afforestation of 



364 APPENDIX II 

land) that will be required in the near future, not for the sake 
of finding measures of relief for the unemployed, but with a 
view to these works being undertaken at such a rate in each 
locality as will suffice, together with the various capitalist 
enterprises that may be in progress, to maintain at a fairly 
uniform level year by year, and throughout each year, the 
aggregate demand for labour; and thus prevent there being 
any unemployed. It is now known that in this way it is 
quite possible for any Government to prevent, if it chooses, 
the occurrence of any widespread or prolonged involuntary un- 
employment; which if it is now in any country allowed to 
occur, is as much the result of Government neglect as is any 
epidemic disease. 

6. RESTORATION OF THE DEVASTATED AREAS AND REPARATION OF 
WRONGDOING 

The Conference holds that one of the most imperative duties 
of all countries immediately Peace is declared will be the 
restoration, so far as may be possible, of the homes, farms, 
factories, public buildings, and means of communication wher- 
ever destroyed by war operations; that the restoration should 
not be limited to compensation for public buildings, capitalist 
undertakings, and material property proved to be destroyed or 
damaged, but should be extended to setting up the wage- 
earners and peasants themselves in homes and employment ; 
and that to ensure the full and impartial application of these 
principles the assessment and distribution of the compensation, 
so far as the cost is contributed by any International Fund, 
should be made under the direction of an International Com- 
mission. 

The Conference will not be satisfied unless there is a full 
and free judicial investigation into the accusations made on all 
sides that particular Governments have ordered, and particular 
officers have exercised, acts of cruelty, oppression, violence, 
and theft against individual victims, for which no justification 
can be found in the ordinary usages of war. It draws attention, 
in particular, to the loss of life and property of merchant 
seamen and other non-combatants (including women and chil- 
dren) resulting from this inhuman and ruthless conduct. It 
should be part of the conditions of Peace that there should 
be forthwith set up a Court of Claims and Accusations, which 



APPENDIX II 365 

should investigate all such allegations as may be brought before 
it, summon the accused person or Government to answer the 
complaint, to pronounce judgement, and award compensation or 
damages, payable by the individual or Government condemned, 
to the persons who had suffered wrong, or to their dependents. 
The several Governments must be responsible, financially and 
otherwise, for the presentation of the cases of their respective 
nationals to such a Court of Claims and Accusations, and for 
the payment of the compensation awarded. 

7. INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS 

The Conference is of opinion that an International Con- 
gress of Labour and Socialist organisations, held under proper 
conditions, would at this stage render useful service to world 
democracy by assisting to remove misunderstandings as well as 
the obstacles which stand in the way of world peace. 

Awaiting the resumption of the normal activities of the 
International Socialist Bureau, we consider that an Interna- 
tional Congress, held during the period of hostilities, should be 
organised by a committee whose impartiality cannot be ques- 
tioned. It should be held in a neutral country, under such con- 
ditions as would inspire confidence among all who take part; 
and the Congress should be fully representative of all the 
Labour and Socialist Movements in all the belligerent countries 
accepting the conditions under which the Congress is convoked. 

As an essential condition to an International Congress, the 
Conference is of opinion that the organisers of the Congress 
should satisfy themselves that all the organisations to be repre- 
sented put in precise form, by a public declaration, their peace 
terms in conformity with the principles, "No annexations or 
punitive indemnities, and the right of all peoples to self- 
determination," and that they are working with all their power 
to obtain from their Governments the necessary guarantees to 
apply these principles honestly and unreservedly to all questions 
to be dealt with at any official Peace Conference. 

In view of the vital differences between the Allied Countries 
and the Central Powers, the Conference is of opinion that it 
is highly advisable that the Congress should be used to provide 
an opportunity for the delegates from the respective countries 
now in a state of war to make a full and frank statement of 
their present position and future intentions, and to endeavour 



366 APPENDIX II 

by mutual agreement to arrange a programme of action for a 
speedy and democratic peace. 

The Conference is of opinion that the working classes, having 
made such sacrifices during the war, are entitled to take part 
in securing a democratic world peace, and that M. Albert 
Thomas (France), M. Emile Vandervelde (Belgium), and Mr. 
Arthur Henderson (Great Britain), be appointed as a Commis- 
sion to secure from all the Governments a promise that at least 
one representative of Labour and Socialism will be included 
in the official representation at any Government Conference; 
and to organise a Labour and Socialist Conference, in which 
no country shall be entitled to more than four representatives, 
to sit concurrently with the official Conference. 

The Conference regrets the absence of American representa- 
tives from the Inter-Allied Conference, and urges the impor- 
tance of securing their approval of the decisions reached. With 
this object in view the Conference agrees that a deputation, 
consisting of one representative from France, Belgium, Italy, 
and Great Britain, together with M. Camille Huysmans (Secre- 
tary of the International Socialist Bureau), proceed to the 
United States at once, in order to confer with representatives 
of the American Democracy on the whole situation of the War. 

The Conference resolves to transmit to the Socialists of the 
Central Empires and of the nations allied with them the Mem- 
orandum in which the Conference has defined the conditions of 
Peace, conformably with the principles of Socialist and Inter- 
national justice. The Conference is convinced that these 
conditions will commend themselves on reflection to the mind 
of every Socialist, and the Conference asks for the answer 
of the Socialists of the Central Empires, in the hope that 
these will join without delay in a joint effort of the Inter- 
national, which has now become more than ever the best and 
the most certain instrument of Democracy and Peace. 

Finally, the Conference invited the respective Labour and 
Socialist organisations and parties to demand the necessary 
freedom of propaganda, both written and oral, in favour of the 
principles adopted by the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist 
Conference. 



APPENDIX III 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE BRITISH LABOUR 
PARTY 

AS ADOPTED BY THE PARTY CONFERENCE HELD IN LONDON ON 
FEBRUARY 21, I918 



The Labour Party. 

2. MEMBERSHIP 

The Labour Party shall consist of all its affiliated organisa- 
tions, 1 together with those men and women who are individual 
members of a Local Labour Party and who subscribe to the 
Constitution and Programme of the Party. 

3- PARTY OBJECTS 

National 

(a) To organise and maintain in Parliament and in the 
country a Political Labour Party, and to ensure the establish- 
ment of a Local Labour Party in every County Constituency 
and every Parliamentary Borough, with suitable divisional 
organisation in the separate constituencies of Divided Bor- 
oughs. 

(&) To co-operate with the Parliamentary Committee of 
the Trades Union Congress, or other Kindred Organisations, 
in joint political or other action in harmony with the Party 
Constitution and Standing Orders. 

(c) To give effect as far as may be practicable to the 
principles from time to time approved by the Party Conference. 

(d) To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the 
full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribu- 

1 Trade Unions, Socialist Societies, Co-operative Societies, Trades 
Councils, and Local Labour Parties. 

367 



368 APPENDIX III 

tion thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the com- 
mon ownership of the means of production and the best ob- 
tainable system of popular administration and control of each 
industry or service. 

(e) Generally to promote the Political, Social, and Econ- 
omic Emancipation of the People, and more particularly of 
those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand 
or by brain for the means of life. 

Inter-Dominion 

(/) To co-operate with the Labour and Socialist organisa- 
tions in the Dominions and the Dependencies with a view to 
promoting the purposes of the Party and to take common 
action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and 
economic life for the working population of the respective 
countries. 

International 

(g) To co-operate with the Labour and Socialist organisa- 
tions in other countries and to assist in organising a Federation 
of Nations for the maintenance of Freedom and Peace, for the 
establishment of suitable machinery for the adjustment and 
settlement of International Disputes by Conciliation or Judicial 
Arbitration, and for such International Legislation as may be 
practicable. 

4. PARTY PROGRAMME 

(a) It shall be the duty of the Party Conference to decide, 
from time to time, what specific proposals of legislative, finan- 
cial, or administrative reform shall receive the general support 
of the Party, and be promoted, as occasion may present itself, 
by the National Executive and the Parliamentary Labour 
Party; provided that no such proposal shall be made definitely 
part of the General Programme of the Party unless it has 
been adppted by the Conference by a majority of not less than 
two-thirds of the votes recorded on a card vote. 

(b) It shall be the duty of the National Executive and the 
Parliamentary Labour Party, prior to every General Election, 
to define the principal issues for that Election which in their 
judgment should be made the Special Party Programme for 
that particular Election Campaign, which shall be issued as a 
manifesto by the Executive to all constituencies where a Labour 
Candidate is standing. 



APPENDIX III 369 

(c) It shall be the duty of every Parliamentary representa- 
tive of the Party to be guided by the decision of the meetings 
of such Parliamentary representatives, with a view to giving 
effect' to the decisions of the Party Conferences as to the 
General Programme of the Party. 

5. THE PARTY CONFERENCE 

(1) The work of the Party shall be under the direction 
and control of the Party Conference, which shall itself be 
subject to the Constitution and Standing Orders of the Party. 
The Party Conference shall meet regularly once in each year, 
and also at such other times as it may be convened by the 
National Executive. 

(2) The Party Conference shall be constituted as follows: — 
(a) Trade Unions and other societies affiliated to the Party 

may send one delegate for each thousand members on which 
fees are paid. 

(6) Local Labour Party delegates may be either men or 
women resident or having a place of business in the constitu- 
ency they represent, and shall be appointed as follows : — 

In Borough and County Constituencies returning one Mem- 
ber to Parliament, the Local Labour Party may appoint one 
delegate. 

In undivided Boroughs returning two Members, two dele- 
gates may be appointed. 

In divided Boroughs one delegate may be appointed for 
each separate constituency within the area. The Local Labour 
Party within the constituency shall nominate and the Central 
Labour Party of the Divided Borough shall appoint the dele- 
gates. In addition to such delegates, the Central Labour Party 
in each Divided Borough may appoint one delegate. 

An additional woman delegate may be appointed for each 
constituency in which the number of affiliated and individual 
women members exceeds 500. 

(c) Trades Councils under Section 8, clause c, shall be 
entitled to one delegate. 

(d) The members of the National Executive, including the 
Treasurer, the members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, 
and the duly-sanctioned Parliamentary Candidates shall be 
ex officio members of the Party Conference, but shall, unless 
delegates, have no right to vote. 



370 APPENDIX III 

6. THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE 

(a) There shall be a National Executive of the Party con- 
sisting of twenty-three members (including the Treasurer) 
elected by the Party Conference at its regular Annual Meeting, 
in such proportion and under such conditions as may be set 
out in the Standing Orders for the time being in force, and 
this National Executive shall, subject to the control and direc- 
tions of the Party Conference, be the Administrative Authority 
of the Party. 

(&) The National Executive shall be responsible for the 
conduct of the general work of the Party. The National 
Executive shall take steps to ensure that the Party is repre- 
sented by a properly constituted organisation in each con- 
stituency in which this is found practicable; it shall give effect 
to the decisions of the Party Conference ; and it shall interpret 
the Constitution and Standing Orders and Rules of the Party 
in all cases of dispute subject to an appeal to the next regular 
Annual Meeting of the Party Conference by the organisation 
or person concerned. 

(c) The National Executive shall confer with the Parlia- 
mentary Labour Party at the opening of each Parliamentary 
Session, and also at any other time when the National Execu- 
tive or the Parliamentary Party may desire such conference, 
on any matters relating to the work and progress of the Party, 
or to the efforts necessary to give effect to the General Pro- 
gramme of the Party. 

7- PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES 

(a) The National Executive shall co-operate with the Local 
Labour Party in any constituency with a view to nominating 
a Labour Candidate at any Parliamentary General or Bye- 
Election. Before any Parliamentary Candidate can be regarded 
as finally adopted for a constituency as a Candidate of the 
Labour Party, his candidature must be sanctioned by the 
National Executive. 

(b) Candidates approved by the National Executive shall 
appear before their constituencies under the designation of 
"Labour Candidate" only. At any General Election they shall 
include in their Election Addresses and give prominence in 
their campaigns to the issues for that Election as defined by the 
National Executive from the General Party Programme. If 



APPENDIX III 371 

they are elected they shall act in harmony with the Constitution 
and Standing Orders of the Party in seeking to discharge the 
responsibilities established by Parliamentary practise. 

(c) Party Candidates shall receive financial assistance for 
election expenditure from the Party funds on the following 
basis : — 

Borough Constituencies, £1 per 1,000 electors. 

County Divisions, £1 15s. per 1,000 electors. 

8. AFFILIATION FEES 

(1) Trade Unions, Socialist Societies, Co-operative Soci- 
eties, and other organisations directly affiliated to the Party 
(but not being affiliated Local Labour Parties or Trades Coun- 
cils) shall pay 2d. per member per annum to the Central Party 
Funds with a minimum of 30s. 

The membership of a Trade Union for the purpose of this 
clause shall be those members contributing to the political fund. 
of the Union established under the Trade Union Act, 1913. 

(2)" The affiliation of Trades Councils will be subject to the 
following conditions : — 

(a) Where Local Labour Parties and Trades Councils at pres- 
ent exist in the same area every effort must be made to amalga- 
mate these bodies, retaining in one organisation the industrial and 
political functions, and incorporating the constitution and rules for 
Local Labour Parties in the rules of the amalgamated body. 

(&) Where no Local Labour Party is in existence and the 
Trades Council is discharging the political functions, such Trades 
Council shall be eligible for affiliation as a Local Labour Party, 
providing that its rules and title be extended so as to include Local 
Labour Party functions. 

(c) Where a Local Labour Party and a Trades Council exist 
in the same area, the Trades Council shall be eligible to be affili- 
ated to the Local Labour Party, but not to the National Party, 
except in such cases where the Trades Council was affiliated to 
the National Party prior to November 1st, 1917. In these cases 
the Executive Committee shall have power to continue national 
affiliations on such conditions as may be deemed necessary. 

(d) Trades Councils included under Section (c) shall pay an 
annual affiliation fee of 30s. 

Local Labour Parties must charge individually enrolled mem- 
bers, male a minimum of is. per annum, female 6d. per annum; 
and 2d. per member so collected must be remitted to the Cen- 
tral Office with a minimum of 30s., as the affiliation fee of 
such Local Labour Party. 

In addition to these payments, a delegation fee of 5s. to the 
Party Conference or any Special Conference may be charged. 



APPENDIX IV 
LABOUR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER 

A DRAFT REPORT ON RECONSTRUCTION SUBMITTED BY THE EXECU- 
TIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY AT THE I7TH 
ANNUAL CONFERENCE, NOTTINGHAM, JAN. 23-25, I918 

It behooves the Labour Party, in formulating its own pro- 
gramme for Reconstruction after the war, and in criticising 
the various preparations and plans that are being made by 
the present Government, to look at the problem as a whole. 
We have to make clear what it is that we wish to construct. 
It is important to emphasise the fact that, whatever may be the 
case with regard to other political parties, our detailed prac- 
tical proposals proceed from definitely held principles. 

THE END OF A CIVILISATION 

We need to beware of patchwork. The view of the Labour 
Party is that what has to be reconstructed after the war is not 
this or that Government Department, or this or that piece of 
social machinery; but, so far as Britain is concerned, society 
itself. The individual worker, or for that matter the individual 
statesman, immersed in daily routine — like the individual sol- 
dier in a battle — easily fails to understand the magnitude and 
far-reaching importance of what is taking place around him. 
How does it fit together as a whole? How does it look from 
a distance ? Count Okuma, one of the oldest, most experienced 
and ablest of the statesmen of Japan, watching the present con- 
flict from the other side of the globe, declares it to be nothing 
less than the death of European civilisation. Just as in the 
past the civilisations of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Carthage and 
the great Roman Empire have been successively destroyed, so, 
in the judgment of this detached observer, the civilisation of all 
Europe is even now receiving its death-blow. We of the 

372 



APPENDIX IV 373 

Labour Party can so far agree in this estimate as to recognise, 
in the present world catastrophe, if not the death, in Europe, 
of civilisation itself, at any rate the culmination and collapse of 
a distinctive industrial civilisation, which the workers will not 
seek to reconstruct. At such times of crisis it is easier to slip 
into ruin than to progress into higher forms of organisation. 
That is the problem as it presents itself to the Labour Party 
to-day. 

What this war is consuming is not merely the security, the 
homes, the livelihood and the lives of millions of innocent 
families, and an enormous proportion of all the accumulated 
wealth of the world, but also the very basis of the peculiar 
social order in which it has arisen. The individualist system 
of capitalist production, based on the private ownership and 
competitive administration of land and capital, with its reck- 
less "profiteering" and wage slavery; with its glorification of the 
unhampered struggle for the means of life and its hypocritical 
pretence of the "survival of the fittest"; with the monstrous 
inequality of circumstances which it produces and the degrada- 
tion and brutalisation, both moral and spiritual, resulting there- 
from, may, we hope, indeed have received a death-blow. 
With it must go the political system and ideas in which it 
naturally found expression. We of the Labour Party, whether 
in opposition or in due time called upon to form an Administra- 
tion, will certainly lend no hand to its revival. On the contrary, 
we shall do our utmost to see that it is buried with the millions 
whom it has done to death. If we in Britain are to escape 
from the decay of civilisation itself, which the Japanese states- 
man foresees, we must ensure that what is presently to be built 
up is a new social order, based not on fighting but on fraternity 
— not on the competitive struggle for the means of bare life, 
but on a deliberately planned co-operation in production and 
distribution for the benefit of all who participate by hand 
or by brain — not on the utmost possible inequality of riches, 
but on a systematic approach towards a healthy equality of 
material circumstances for every person born into the world — 
not on an enforced dominion over subject nations, subject races, 
subject Colonies, subject classes, or a subject sex, but, in 
industry as well as in government, on that equal freedom, 
that general consciousness of consent, and that widest possible 
participation in power, both economic and political, which is 
characteristic of Democracy. We do not, of course, pretend 



374 APPENDIX IV 

that it is possible, even after the drastic clearing away that 
is now going on, to build society anew in a year or two of 
feverish "Reconstruction." What the Labour Party intends 
to satisfy itself about is that each brick that it helps to lay 
shall go to erect the structure that it intends, and no other. 

THE PILLARS OF THE HOUSE 

We need not here recapitulate, one by one, the different items 
in the Labour Party's programme, which successive Party 
Conferences have adopted. These proposals, some of them 
in various publications worked out in practical detail, are often 
carelessly derided as impracticable, even by the politicians who 
steal them piecemeal from us ! The members of the Labour 
Party, themselves actually working by hand or by brain, in 
close contact with the facts, have perhaps at all times a more 
accurate appreciation of what is practicable, in industry as in 
politics, than those who depend solely on academic instruction 
or are biased by great possessions. But to-day no man dares 
to say that anything is impracticable. The war, which has 
scared the old Political Parties right out of their dogmas, has 
taught every statesman and every Government official, to his 
enduring surprise, how very much more can be done along the 
lines that we have laid down than he had ever before thought 
possible. What we now promulgate as our policy, whether for 
opposition or for office, is not merely this or that specific reform, 
but a deliberately thought out, systematic, and comprehensive 
plan for that immediate social rebuilding which any Ministry, 
whether or not it desires to grapple with the problem, will be 
driven to undertake. The Four Pillars of the House that we 
propose to erect, resting upon the common foundation of the 
Democratic control of society in all its activities, may be termed, 
respectively: 

(a) The Universal Enforcement of the National Minimum; 

(b) The Democratic Control of Industry; 

(c) The Revolution in National Finance; and 

(d) The Surplus Wealth for the Common Good. 

The various detailed proposals of the Labour Party, herein 
briefly summarised, rest on these four pillars, and can best 
be appreciated in connection with them. 



APPENDIX IV 375 

THE UNIVERSAL ENFORCEMENT OF A NATIONAL MINIMUM 

The first principle of the Labour Party — in significant con- 
trast with those of the Capitalist System, whether expressed by 
the Liberal or by the Conservative Party — is the securing to 
every member of the community, in good times and bad alike 
(and not only to the strong and able, the well-born or the 
fortunate), of all the requisites of healthy life and worthy 
citizenship. This is in no sense a "class" proposal. Such an 
amount of social protection of the individual, however poor 
and lowly, from birth to death, is, as the economist now knows, 
as indispensable to fruitful co-operation as it is to successful 
combination ; and it affords the only complete safeguard against 
that insidious Degradation of the Standard of Life, which is 
the worst economic and social calamity to which any commu- 
nity can be subjected. We are members one of another. No 
man liveth to himself alone. If any, even the humblest, is 
made to suffer, the whole community and every one of us, 
whether or not we recognise the fact, is thereby injured. Gener- 
ation after generation this has been the corner-stone of the 
faith of Labour. It will be the guiding principle of any 
Labour Government. 

The Legislative Regulation of Employment 

Thus it is that the Labour Party to-day stands for the uni- 
versal application of the Policy of the National Minimum, to 
which (as embodied in the successive elaborations of the 
Factory, Mines, Railways, Shops, Merchant Shipping, and 
Truck Acts, the Public Health, Housing, and Education Acts 
and the Minimum Wage Act — all of them aiming at the enforce- 
ment of at least the prescribed Minimum of Leisure, Health, 
Education, and Subsistence) the spokesmen of Labour have 
already gained the support of the enlightened statesmen and 
economists of the world. All these laws purporting to pro- 
tect against extreme Degradation of the Standard of Life need 
considerable improvement and extension, whilst their adminis- 
tration leaves much to be desired. For instance, the Work- 
men's Compensation Act fails, shamefully, not merely to secure 
proper provision for all the victims of accident and industrial 
disease, but what is much more important, does not succeed in 
preventing their continual increase. The amendment and con- 



376 APPENDIX IV 

solidation of the Factories and Workshops Acts, with their 
extension to all employed persons, is long overdue, and it will 
be the policy of Labour greatly to strengthen the staff of 
inspectors, especially by the addition of more men and women 
of actual experience of the workshop and the mine. The Coal 
Mines (Minimum Wage) Act must certainly be maintained in 
force, and suitably amended, so as both to ensure greater uni- 
formity of conditions among the several districts, and to make 
the District Minimum in all cases an effective reality. The 
same policy will, in the interests of the agricultural labourers, 
dictate the perpetuation of the Legal Wage clauses of the new 
Corn Law just passed for a term of five years, and the prompt 
amendment of any defects that may be revealed in their work- 
ing. And, in view of the fact that many millions of wage- 
earners, notably women and the less skilled workmen in various 
occupations, are unable by combination to obtain wages adequate 
for decent maintenance in health, the Labour Party intends 
to see to it that the Trade Boards Act is suitably amended and 
made to apply to all industrial employments in which any con- 
siderable number of those employed obtain less than 30s. per 
week. This minimum of not less than 30s. per week (which 
will need revision according to the level of prices) ought to be 
the very lowest statutory base line for the least skilled adult 
workers, men or women, in any occupation, in all parts of 
the United Kingdom. 

The Organisation of Demobilisation 

But the coming industrial dislocation, which will inevitably 
follow the discharge from war service of half of all the work- 
ing population, imposes new obligations upon the community. 
The demobilisation and discharge of the eight million wage- 
earners now being paid from public funds, either for service 
with the Colours or in munition work and other war trades, will 
bring to the whole wage-earning class grave peril of Unem- 
ployment, Reduction of Wages, and a lasting Degradation of 
the Standard of Life, which can be prevented only by deliberate 
National Organisation. The Labour Party has repeatedly called 
upon the present Government to formulate its plan, and to 
make in advance all arrangements necessary for coping with 
so unparalleled a dislocation. The policy to which the Labour 
Party commits itself is unhesitating and uncompromising. It 



APPENDIX IV 377 

is plain that regard should be had, in stopping Government 
orders, reducing the staff of the National Factories and demo- 
bilising the Army, to the actual state of employment in par- 
ticular industries and in different districts, so as both to 
release first the kinds of labour most urgently required for the 
revival of peace production, and to prevent any congestion of 
the market. It is no less imperative that suitable provision 
against being turned suddenly adrift without resources should 
be made, not only for the soldiers, but also for the three mil- 
lion operatives in munition work and other war trades, who will 
be discharged long before most of the Army can be dis- 
banded. On this important point, which is the most urgent 
of all, the present Government has, we believe, down to the 
present hour, formulated no plan, and come to no decision, 
and neither the Liberal nor the Conservative Party has ap- 
parently deemed the matter worthy of agitation. Any Govern- 
ment which should allow the discharged soldier or munition 
worker to fall into the clutches of charity or the Poor Law 
would have to be instantly driven from office by an outburst 
of popular indignation. What every one of them who is not 
wholly disabled will look for is a situation in accordance with 
his capacity. 

Securing Employment for All 

The Labour Party insists — as no other political party has 
thought fit to do — that the obligation to find suitable employment 
in productive work for all these men and women rests upon 
the Government for the time being. The work of re-settling 
the disbanded soldiers and discharged munition workers into 
new situations is a national obligation; and the Labour Party 
emphatically protests against it being regarded as a matter for 
private charity. It strongly objects to this public duty being 
handed over either to committees of philanthropists or benevo- 
lent societies, or to any of the military or recruiting authorities. 
The policy of the Labour Party in this matter is to make the 
utmost use of the Trade Unions, and, equally for the brain- 
workers, of the various Professional Associations. In view of 
the fact that, in any trade, the best organisation for placing 
men in situations is a national Trade Union having local 
Branches throughout the kingdom, every soldier should be al- 
lowed, if he chooses, to have a duplicate of his industrial dis- 
charge notice sent, one month before the date fixed for his 



378 APPENDIX IV 

discharge, to the Secretary of the Trade Union to which he 
belongs or wishes to belong. Apart from this use of the Trade 
Union (and a corresponding use of the Professional Associa- 
tion) the Government must, of course, avail itself of some such 
public machinery as that of the Employment Exchanges; but 
before the existing Exchanges (which will need to be greatly 
extended) can receive the co-operation and support of the 
organised Labour Movement, without which their operations 
can never be fully successful, it is imperative that they should 
be drastically reformed, on the lines laid down in the Demo- 
bilisation Report of the "Labour After the War" Joint Com- 
mittee; and, in particular, that each Exchange should be 
placed effectively under the supervision and control of a Joint 
Committee of Employers and Trade Unionists in equal num- 
bers. 

The responsibility of the Government for the time being, 
in the grave industrial crisis that demobilisation will produce, 
goes, however, far beyond the eight million men and women 
whom the various Departments will suddenly discharge from 
their own service. The effect of this peremptory discharge on 
all the other workers has also to be taken into account. To 
the Labour Party it will seem the supreme concern of the 
Government of the day to see to it that there shall be, as a 
result of the gigantic "General Post" which it will itself 
have deliberately set going, nowhere any Degradation of the 
Standard of Life. The Government has pledged itself to re- 
store the Trade Union conditions and "pre-war practices" of 
the workshop, which the Trade Unions patriotically gave up at 
the direct request of the Government itself; and this solemn 
pledge must be fulfilled, of course, in the spirit as well as in the 
letter. The Labour Party, moreover, holds it to be the duty 
of the Government of the day to take all necessary steps to 
prevent the Standard Rates of Wages, in any trade or occupa- 
tion whatsoever, from suffering any reduction, relatively to the 
contemporary cost of living. Unfortunately, the present Gov- 
ernment, like the Liberal and Conservative Parties, so far re- 
fuses to speak on this important matter with any clear voice. 
We claim that it should be a cardinal point of Government 
policy to make it plain to every capitalist employer that any 
attempt to reduce the customary rates of wages when peace 
comes, or to take advantage of the dislocation of demobilisa- 
tion to worsen the conditions of employment in any grade 



APPENDIX IV 379 

whatsoever, will certainly lead to embittered industrial strife, 
which will be in the highest degree detrimental to the national 
interests; and that the Government of the day will not hesitate 
to take all necessary steps to avert such a calamity. In the 
great impending crisis the Government of the day should not 
only, as the greatest employer of both brainworkers and manual 
workers, set a good example in this respect, but should also 
actively seek to influence private employers by proclaiming in 
advance that it will not itself attempt to lower the Standard 
Rates of conditions in public employment; by announcing that 
it will insist on the most rigorous observance of the Fair 
Wages Clause in all public contracts, and by explicitly recom- 
mending every Local Authority to adopt the same policy. 

But nothing is more dangerous to the Standard of Life, or so 
destructive of those minimum conditions of healthy existence, 
which must in the interests of the community be assured to 
every worker, than any widespread or continued unemployment. 
It has always been a fundamental principle of the Labour 
Party (a point on which, significantly enough, it has not been 
followed by either of the other political parties), that, in a 
modern industrial community, it is one of the foremost obliga- 
tions of the Government to find, for every willing worker, 
whether by hand or by brain, productive work at Standard 
Rates. 

It is accordingly the duty of the Government to adopt a policy 
of deliberately and systematically preventing the occurrence 
of unemployment, instead of (as heretofore) letting unemploy- 
ment occur, and then seeking, vainly and expensively, to relieve 
the unemployed. It is now known that the Government can, 
if it chooses, arrange the public works and the orders of 
National Departments and Local Authorities in such a way as 
to maintain the aggregate demand for labour in the whole king- 
dom (including that of capitalist employers) approximately at a 
uniform level from year to year; and it is therefore a primary 
obligation of the Government to prevent any considerable or 
widespread fluctuations in the total numbers employed in times 
of good or bad trade. But this is not all. In order to prepare 
for the possibility of there being any unemployment, either 
in the course of demobilisation or in the first years of peace, 
it is essential that the Government should make all necessary 
preparations for putting instantly in hand, directly or through 
the Local Authorities, such urgently needed public works as 



380 APPENDIX IV 

(a) the rehousing of the population alike in rural districts, 
mining villages, and town slums, to the extent, possibly, of a 
million new cottages and an outlay of 300 millions sterling; (&) 
the immediate making-good of the shortage of schools, training 
colleges, technical colleges, &c, and the engagement of the 
necessary additional teaching, clerical, and administrative staffs ; 
(c) new roads; (d) light railways; (e) the unification and re- 
organisation of the railway and canal system; (/) afforestation; 
(g) the reclamation of land; (h) the development and better 
equipment of our ports and harbours; (i) the opening of access 
to land by co-operative small holdings and in other practicable 
ways. Moreover, in order to relieve any pressure of an over- 
stocked labour market, the opportunity should be taken, if un- 
employment should threaten to become widespread, (a) im- 
mediately to raise the school-leaving age to sixteen; (b) greatly 
to increase the number of scholarships and bursaries for Sec- 
ondary and Higher Education; and (c) substantially to shorten 
the hours of labour of all young persons, even to a greater 
extent than the eight hours per week contemplated in the new 
Education Bill, in order to enable them to attend technical and 
other classes in the daytime. Finally, wherever practicable, 
the hours of adult labour should be reduced to not more than 
forty-eight per week, without reduction of the Standard Rates 
of Wages. There can be no economic or other justification 
for keeping any man or woman to work for long hours, or at 
overtime, whilst others are unemployed. 

Social Insurance against Unemployment 

In so far as the Government fails to prevent Unemployment 
— whenever it finds it impossible to discover for any willing 
worker, man or woman, a suitable situation at the Standard 
Rate — the Labour Party holds that the Government must, in 
the interest of the community as a whole, provide him or her 
with adequate maintenance, either with such arrangements for 
honourable employment or with such useful training as may be 
found practicable, according to age, health and previous occupa- 
tion. In many ways the best form of provision for those who 
must be unemployed, because the industrial organisation of the 
community so far breaks down as to be temporarily unable to 
set them to work, is the Out of Work Benefit afforded by a 
well-administered Trade Union. This is a special tax on the 



APPENDIX IV 381 

Trade Unionists themselves which they have voluntarily un- 
dertaken, but towards which they have a right to claim a pub- 
lic subvention — a subvention which was actually granted by 
Parliament (though only to the extent of a couple of shillings or 
so per week) under Part II. of the Insurance Act. The ar- 
bitrary withdrawal by the Government in 1915 of this statutory 
right of the Trade Unions was one of the least excusable of 
the war economies ; and the Labour Party must insist on the 
resumption of this subvention immediately the war ceases, and 
on its increase to at least half the amount spent in Out of 
Work Benefit. The extension of State Unemployment Insur- 
ance to other occupations may afford a convenient method of pro- 
viding for such of the Unemployed, especially in the case of 
badly paid women workers and the less skilled men, whom it is 
difficult to organise in Trade Unions. But the weekly rate of the 
State Unemployment Benefit needs, in these days of high prices, 
to be considerably raised; whilst no industry ought to be com- 
pulsorily brought within its scope against the declared will of 
the workers concerned, and especially of their Trade Unions. In 
one way or another remunerative employment or honourable 
maintenance must be found for every willing worker, by hand 
or by brain, in bad times as well as in good. It is clear that, 
in the twentieth century, there must be no question of driving 
the Unemployed to anything so obsolete and discredited as 
either private charity, with its haphazard and ill-considered 
doles, or the Poor Law, with the futilities and barbarities of its 
"Stone Yard," or its "Able-bodied Test Workhouse." Only 
on the basis of a universal application of the Policy of the 
National Minimum, affording complete security against desti- 
tution, in sickness and health, in good times and bad alike, to 
every member of the community of whatever age or sex, can 
any worthy social order be built up. 

THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 

The universal application of the Policy of the National Mini- 
mum is, of course, only the first of the Pillars of the House 
that the Labour Party intends to see built. What marks off this 
Party most distinctively from any of the other political parties 
is its demand for the full and genuine adoption of the principle 
of Democracy. The first condition of Democracy is ef- 
fective personal freedom. This has suffered so many en- 



382 APPENDIX IV 

croachments during the war that it is necessary to state with 
clearness that the complete removal of all the war-time re- 
strictions on freedom of speech, freedom of publication, free- 
dom of the press, freedom of travel and freedom of choice of 
place of residence and kind of employment must take place 
the day after Peace is declared. The Labour Party declares 
emphatically against any continuance of the Military Service 
Acts a moment longer than the imperative requirements of 
the war excuse. But individual freedom is of little use with- 
out complete political rights. The Labour Party sees its re- 
peated demands largely conceded in the present Representa- 
tion of the People Act, but not yet wholly satisfied. The 
Party stands, as heretofore, for complete Adult Suffrage, with 
not more than a three months' residential qualification, for 
effective provisions for absent electors to vote, for absolutely 
equal rights for both sexes, for the same freedom to exercise 
civic rights for the "common soldier" as for the officer, for 
Shorter Parliaments, for the complete Abolition of the House 
of Lords, and for a most strenuous opposition to any new 
Second Chamber, whether elected or not, having in it any ele- 
ment of Heredity or Privilege, or of the control of the House 
of Commons by any Party or Class. But unlike the Conserva- 
tive and Liberal Parties, the Labour Party insists on Democ- 
racy in industry as well as in government. It demands the 
progressive elimination from the control of industry of the 
private capitalist, individual or joint-stock; and the setting 
free of all who work, whether by hand or by brain, for the 
service of the community, and of the community only. And 
the Labour Party refuses absolutely to believe that the British 
people will permanently tolerate any reconstruction or perpetua- 
tion of the disorganisation, waste and inefficiency involved in 
the abandonment of British industry to a jostling crowd of 
separate private employers, with their minds bent, not on the 
service of the community, but — by the very law of their be- 
ing — only on the utmost possible profiteering. What the nation 
needs is undoubtedly a great bound onward in its aggregate 
productivity. But this cannot be secured merely by pressing 
the manual workers to more strenuous toil, or even by en- 
couraging the "Captains of Industry" to a less wasteful organ- 
isation of their several enterprises on a profit-making basis. 
What the Labour Party looks to is a genuinely scientific re- 
organisation of the nation's industry, no longer deflected by in- 



APPENDIX IV 383 

dividual profiteering, on the basis of the Common Ownership 
of the Means of Production; the equitable sharing of the pro- 
ceeds among all who participate in any capacity and only 
among these, and the adoption, in particular services and oc- 
cupations, of those systems and methods of administration and 
control that may be found, in practice, best to promote, not 
profiteering, but the public interest. 

IMMEDIATE NATIONALISATION 

The Labour Party stands not merely for the principle of the 
Common Ownership of the nation's land, to be applied as suit- 
able opportunities occur, but also, specifically, for the imme- 
diate Nationalisation of Railways, Mines and the production of 
Electrical Power. We hold that the very foundation of any 
successful reorganisation of British Industry must necessarily 
be found in the provision of the utmost facilities for trans- 
port and communication, the production of power at the 
cheapest possible rate and the most economical supply of both 
electrical energy and coal to every corner of the kingdom. 
Hence the Labour Party stands, unhesitatingly, for the Na- 
tional Ownership and Administration of the Railways and 
Canals, and their union, along with Harbours and Roads, and 
the Posts and Telegraphs — not to say also the great lines of 
steamers which could at once be owned, if not immediately 
directly managed in detail, by the Government — in a united 
national service of Communication and Transport; to be 
worked, unhampered by capitalist, private or purely local in- 
terests (and with a steadily increasing participation of the 
organised workers in the management, both central and local), 
exclusively for the common good. If any Government should 
be so misguided as to propose, when peace comes, to hand the 
railways back to the shareholders; or should show itself so 
spendthrift of the nation's property as to give these share- 
holders any enlarged franchise by presenting them with the 
economies of unification or the profits of increased railway 
rates; or so extravagant as to bestow public funds on the re- 
equipment of privately-owned lines — all of which things are 
now being privately intrigued for by the railway interests — 
the Labour Party will offer any such project the most strenuous 
opposition. The railways and canals, like the roads, must 
henceforth belong to the public, and to the public alone. 



384 APPENDIX IV 

In the production of Electricity, for cheap Power, Light, and 
Heating, this country has so far failed, because of hampering 
private interests, to take advantage of science. Even in the 
largest cities we still "peddle" our Electricity on a contemptibly 
small scale. What is called for, immediately after the war, is 
the erection of a score of gigantic "super-power stations," 
which could generate, at incredibly cheap rates, enough Elec- 
tricity for the use of every industrial establishment and every 
private household in Great Britain; the present municipal and 
joint-stock electrical plants being universally linked up and 
used for local distribution. This is inevitably the future of 
Electricity. It is plain that so great and so powerful an enter- 
prise, affecting every industrial enterprise and, eventually, every 
household, must not be allowed to pass into the hands of private 
capitalists. They are already pressing the Government for 
the concession, and neither the Liberal nor the Conservative 
Party has yet made up its mind to a refusal of such a new en- 
dowment of profiteering in what will presently be the life- 
blood of modern productive industry. The Labour Party de- 
mands that the production of Electricity on the necessary 
gigantic scale shall be made, from the start (with suitable ar- 
rangements for municipal co-operation in local distribution) a 
national enterprise, to be worked exclusively with the object 
of supplying the whole kingdom with the cheapest possible 
Power, Light, and Heat. 

But with Railways and the generation of Electricity in the 
hands of the public, it would be criminal folly to leave to the 
present 1,500 colliery companies the power of "holding up" the 
coal supply. These are now all working under public control, 
on terms that virtually afford to their shareholders a statutory 
guarantee of their swollen incomes. The Labour Party de- 
mands the immediate Nationalisation of Mines, the extraction 
of coal and iron being worked as a public service (with a 
steadily increasing participation in the management, both cen- 
tral and local, of the various grades of persons employed) ; and 
the whole business of the retail distribution of household coal 
being undertaken, as a local public service, by the elected Mu- 
nicipal or County Councils. And there is no reason why coal 
should fluctuate in price any more than railway fares, or why 
the consumer should be made to pay more in winter than in 
summer, or in one town than another. What the Labour Party 
would aim at is, for household coal of standard quality, a fixed 



APPENDIX IV 385 

and uniform price for the whole kingdom, payable by rich 
and poor alike, as unalterable as the penny postage-stamp. 

But the sphere of immediate Nationalisation is not restricted 
to these great industries. We shall never succeed in putting 
the gigantic system of Health Insurance on a proper footing, or 
secure a clear field for the beneficent work of the Friendly 
Societies, or gain a free hand for the necessary development of 
the urgently called for Ministry of Health and the Local Pub- 
lic Health Service, until the nation expropriates the profit-mak- 
ing Industrial Insurance Companies, which now so tyrannously 
exploit the people with their wasteful house-to-house Industrial 
Life Assurance. Only by such an expropriation of Life Assur- 
ance Companies can we secure the universal provision, free 
from the burdensome toll of weekly pence, of the indispensable 
Funeral Benefit. Nor is it in any sense a "class" measure. 
Only by the assumption by a State Department of the whole 
business of Life Assurance can the millions of policy-holders 
of all classes be completely protected against the possibly calam- 
itous results of the depreciation of securities and suspension of 
bonuses which the war is causing. Only by this means can the 
great staff of insurance agents find their proper place as Civil 
Servants, with equitable conditions of employment, compensa- 
tion for any disturbance and security of tenure, in a nationally 
organised public service for the discharge of the steadily in- 
creasing functions of the Government in Vital Statistics and 
Social Insurance. 

In quite another sphere the Labour Party sees the key to 
Temperance Reform in taking the entire manufacture and re- 
tailing of alcoholic drink out of the hands of those who find 
profit in promoting the utmost possible consumption. This 
is essentially a case in which the people, as a whole, must 
assert its right to full and unfettered power for dealing with 
the licensing question in accordance with local opinion. For 
this purpose, localities should have conferred upon them 
facilities 

(a) To prohibit the sale of liquor within their boundaries; 

(b) To reduce the number of licences and regulate the 
conditions under which they may be held; and 

(c) If a locality decides that licences are to be granted, to 
determine whether such licences shall be under private 
or any form of public control. 



386 APPENDIX IV, 

Municipalisation 

Other main industries, especially those now becoming monop- 
olised, should be nationalised as opportunity offers. Moreover, 
the Labour Party holds that the Municipalities should not con- 
fine their activities to the necessarily costly services of Educa- 
tion, Sanitation, and Police; nor yet rest content with acquir- 
ing control of the local Water, Gas, Electricity, and Tram- 
ways; but that every facility should be afforded to them to ac- 
quire (easily, quickly, and cheaply) all the land they require, 
and to extend their enterprises in Housing and Town Planning, 
Parks, and Public Libraries, the provision of music and the 
organisation of recreation; and also to undertake, besides the 
retailing of coal, other services of common utility, particularly 
the local supply of milk, wherever this is not already fully and 
satisfactorily organised by a Co-operative Society. 

Control of Capitalist Industry 

Meanwhile, however, we ought not to throw away the valu- 
able experience now gained by the Government in its assump- 
tion of the importation of wheat, wool, metals, and other com- 
modities, and in its control of the shipping, woollen, leather, 
clothing, boot and shoe, milling, baking, butchering, and other 
industries. The Labour Party holds that, whatever may have 
been the shortcomings of this Government importation and 
control, it has demonstrably prevented a lot of "profiteering." 
Nor can it end immediately on the Declaration of Peace. The 
people will be extremely foolish if they ever allow their in- 
dispensable industries to slip back into the unfettered control of 
private capitalists, who are, actually at the instance of the 
Government itself, now rapidly combining, trade by trade, into 
monopolist Trusts, which may presently become as ruthless in 
their extortion as the worst American examples. Standing as 
it does for the Democratic Control of Industry, the Labour 
Party would think twice before it sanctioned any abandonment 
of the present profitable centralisation of purchase of raw 
material; of the present carefully organised "rationing," by 
joint committees of the trades concerned, of the several estab- 
lishments with the materials they require; of the present 
elaborate system of "costing" and public audit of manufacturers' 
accounts, so as to stop the waste heretofore caused by the 
mechanical inefficiency of the more backward firms; of the 



APPENDIX IV 387 

present salutary publicity of manufacturing processes and ex- 
penses thereby ensured; and, on the information thus obtained 
(in order never again to revert to the old-time profiteering) 
of the present rigid fixing, for standardised products, of maxi- 
mum prices at the factory, at the warehouse of the whole- 
sale trader, and in the retail shop. This question of the retail 
prices of household commodities is emphatically the most 
practical of all political issues to the woman elector. The male 
politicians have too long neglected the grievances of the small 
household, which is the prey of every profiteering combina- 
tion ; and neither the Liberal nor the Conservative Party prom- 
ises, in this respect, any amendment. This, too, is in no sense 
a "class" measure. It is, so the Labour Party holds, just as 
much the function of Government, and just as necessary a part 
of the Democratic Regulation of Industry, to safeguard the 
interests of the community as a whole, and those of all grades 
and sections of private consumers, in the matter of prices, as it 
is, by the Factory and Trade Boards Acts, to protect the rights 
of the wage-earning producers in the matter of wages, hours of 
labour, and sanitation. 

A REVOLUTION IN NATIONAL FINANCE 

In taxation, also, the interests of the professional and house- 
keeping classes are at one with those of the manual workers. 
Too long has our National Finance been regulated, contrary 
to the teaching of Political Economy, according to the wishes 
of the possessing classes and the profits of the financiers. The 
colossal expenditure involved in the present war (of which, 
against the protest of the Labour Party, only a quarter has 
been raised by taxation, whilst three-quarters have been bor- 
rowed at onerous rates of interest, to be a burden on the na- 
tion's future) brings things to a crisis. When peace comes, 
capital will be needed for all sorts of social enterprises, and 
the resources of Government will necessarily have to be vastly 
greater than they were before the war. Meanwhile innumer- 
able new private fortunes are being heaped up by those who 
have taken advantage of the nation's needs; and the one-tenth 
of the population which owns nine-tenths of the riches of the 
United Kingdom, far from being made poorer, will find itself, 
in the aggregate, as a result of the war, drawing in rent and 
interest and dividends a larger nominal income than ever be r 



388 APPENDIX IV 

fore. Such a position demands a revolution in national finance. 
How are we to discharge a public debt that may well reach 
the almost incredible figure of 7,000 million pounds sterling, 
and at the same time raise an annual revenue which, for local 
as well as central government, must probably reach 1,000 mil- 
lions a year? It is over this problem of taxation that the 
various political parties will be found to be most sharply di- 
vided. 

The Labour Party stands for such a system of taxation as 
will yield all the necessary revenue to the Government without 
encroaching on the prescribed National Minimum Standard of 
Life of any family whatsoever; without hampering produc- 
tion or discouraging any useful personal effort, and with the 
nearest possible approximation to equality of sacrifice. We 
definitely repudiate all proposals for a Protective Tariff, in 
whatever specious guise they may be cloaked, as a device for 
burdening the consumer with unnecessarily enhanced prices, to 
the profit of the capitalist employer or landed proprietor, who 
avowedly expects his profit or rent to be increased thereby. We 
shall strenuously oppose any taxation, of whatever kind, which 
would increase the price of food or of any other necessary of 
life. We hold that indirect taxation on commodities, whether 
by Customs or Excise, should be strictly limited to luxuries; 
and concentrated principally on those of which it is socially 
desirable that the consumption should be actually discouraged. 
We are at one with the manufacturer, the farmer, and the 
trader in objecting to taxes interfering with production or 
commerce, or hampering transport and communications. In 
all these matters — once more in contrast with the other political 
parties, and by no means in the interests of the wage-earners 
alone — the Labour Party demands that the very definite teach- 
ings of economic science should no longer be disregarded. 

For the raising of the greater part of the revenue now re- 
quired the Labour Party looks to the direct taxation of the in- 
comes above the necessary cost of family maintenance; and for 
the requisite effort to pay off the National Debt, to the direct 
taxation of private fortunes both during life and at death. The 
Income Tax and Super-tax ought at once to be thoroughly re- 
formed in assessment and collection, in abatements and allow- 
ances and in graduation and differentiation, so as to levy the 
required total sum in such a way as to make the real sacrifice of 
all the taxpayers as nearly as possible equal. This would in- 



APPENDIX IV 389 

volve assessment by families instead of by individual persons, 
so that the burden is alleviated in proportion to the number of 
persons to be maintained. It would involve the raising of the 
present unduly low minimum income assessable to the tax, and 
the lightening of the present unfair burden on the great mass 
of professional and small trading classes by a new scale of 
graduation, rising from a penny in the pound on the smallest 
assessable income up to sixteen or even nineteen shillings in 
the pound on the highest income of the millionaires. It would 
involve bringing into assessment the numerous windfalls of 
profit that now escape, and a further differentiation between es- 
sentially different kinds of income. The Excess Profits Tax 
might well be retained in an appropriate form; whilst so long 
as Mining Royalties exist the Mineral Rights Duty ought to be 
increased. The steadily rising Unearned Increment of urban 
and mineral land ought, by an appropriate direct Taxation of 
Land Values, to be wholly brought into the Public Exchequer. 
At the same time, for the service and redemption of the Na- 
tional Debt, the Death Duties ought to be regraduated, much 
more strictly collected, and greatly increased. In this matter 
we need, in fact, completely to reverse our point of view, and 
to rearrange the whole taxation of Inheritance from the stand- 
point of asking what is the maximum amount that any rich 
man should be permitted at death to divert, by his will, from 
the National Exchequer, which should normally be the heir to 
all private riches in excess of a quite moderate amount by 
way of family provision. But all this will not suffice. It will 
be imperative at the earliest possible moment to free the na- 
tion from at any rate the greater part of its new load of in- 
terest-bearing debt for loans which ought to have been levied 
as taxation; and the Labour Party stands for a special Capital 
Levy to pay off, if not the whole, a very substantial part of 
the entire National Debt — a Capital Levy chargeable like the 
Death Duties on all property, but (in order to secure approxi- 
mate equality of sacrifice) with exemption of the smallest sav- 
ings, and for the rest at rates very steeply graduated, so as 
to take only a small contribution from the little people and a 
very much larger percentage from the millionaires. 

Over this issue of how the financial burden of the war is to 
be borne, and how the necessary revenue is to be raised, the 
greatest political battles will be fought. In this matter the 
Labour Party claims the support of four-fifths of the whole 



390 APPENDIX IV 

nation, for the interests of the clerk, the teacher, the doctor, 
the minister of religion, the average retail shopkeeper and 
trader, and all the mass of those living on small incomes arc 
identical with those of the artisan. The landlords, the financial 
magnates, the possessors of great fortunes will not, as a class, 
willingly forego the relative immunity that they have hitherto 
enjoyed. The present unfair subjection of the Co-operative 
Society to an Excess Profits Tax on the "profits" which it has 
never made — specially dangerous as "the thin end of the 
wedge" of penal taxation of this laudable form of Democratic 
enterprise — will not be abandoned without a struggle. Every 
possible effort will be made to juggle with the taxes, so as to 
place upon the shoulders of the mass of labouring folk and 
upon the struggling households of the professional men and 
small traders (as was done after every previous war) — whether 
by Customs or Excise Duties, by industrial monopolies, by un- 
necessarily high rates of postage and railway fares, or by a 
thousand and one other ingenious devices — an unfair share of 
the national burden. Against these efforts the Labour Party 
will take the firmest stand. 

THE SURPLUS FOR THE COMMON GOOD 

In the disposal of the surplus above the Standard of Life 
society has hitherto gone as far wrong as in its neglect to secure 
the necessary basis of any genuine industrial efficiency or decent 
social order. We have allowed the riches of our mines, the 
rental value of the lands superior to the margin of cultiva- 
tion, the extra profits of the fortunate capitalists, even the ma- 
terial outcome of scientific discoveries — which ought by now to 
have made this Britain of ours immune from class poverty or 
from any widespread destitution — to be absorbed by individual 
proprietors; and then devoted very largely to the senseless 
luxury of an idle rich class. Against this misappropriation 
of the wealth of the community, the Labour Party — speaking 
in the interests not of the wage-earners alone, but of every 
grade and section of producers by hand or by brain, not to men- 
tion also those of the generations that are to succeed us, and 
of the permanent welfare of the community — emphatically pro- 
tests. One main Pillar of the House that the Labour Party in- 
tends to build is the future appropriation of the Surplus, not 
to the enlargement of any individual fortune, but to the Com- 
mon Good. It is from this constantly arising Surplus (to be 



APPENDIX IV 391 - 

secured, on the one hand, by Nationalisation and Municipali- 
sation and, on the other, by the steeply graduated Taxation of 
Private Income and Riches) that will have to be found the 
new capital which the community day by day needs for the 
perpetual improvement and increase of its various enterprises, 
for which we shall decline to be dependent on the usury-ex- 
acting financiers. It is from the same source that has to be 
defrayed the public provision for the Sick and Infirm of all 
kinds (including that for Maternity and Infancy) which is 
still so scandalously insufficient; for the Aged and those pre- 
maturely incapacitated by accident or disease, now in many 
ways so imperfectly cared for; for the Education alike of 
children, of adolescents and of adults, in which the Labour 
Party demands a genuine equality of opportunity, overcoming 
all differences of material circumstances ; and for the organisa- 
tion of public improvements of all kinds, including the brighten- 
ing of the lives of those now condemned to almost ceaseless 
toil, and a great development of the means of recreation. 
From the same source must come the greatly increased public 
provision that the Labour Party will insist on being made for 
scientific investigation and original research, in every branch 
of knowledge, not to say also for the promotion of music, 
literature and fine art, which have been under Capitalism so 
greatly neglected, and upon which, so the Labour Party holds, 
any real development of civilisation fundamentally depends. 
Society, like the individual, does not live by bread alone — does 
not exist only for perpetual wealth production. It is in the pro- 
posal for this appropriation of every Surplus for the Com- 
mon Good — in the vision of its resolute use for the building 
up of the community as a whole instead of for the magnifica- 
tion of individual fortunes — that the Labour Party, as the 
Party of the Producers by hand or by brain, most distinctively 
marks itself off from the older political parties, standing, as 
these do, essentially for the maintenance, unimpaired, of the 
perpetual private mortgage upon the annual product of the 
nation that is involved in the individual ownership of land 
and capital. 

THE STREET OF TO-MORROW 

The House which the Labour Party intends to build, the four 
Pillars of which have now been described, does not stand alone 



392 APPENDIX IV 

in the world. Where will it be in the Street of To-morrow? If 
we repudiate, on the one hand, the Imperialism that seeks to 
dominate other races, or to impose our own will on other parts 
of the British Empire, so we disclaim equally any conception 
of a selfish and insular "non-interventionism," unregarding of 
our special obligations to our fellow-citizens overseas; of the 
corporate duties of one nation to another; of the moral claims 
upon us of the non-adult races, and of our own indebtedness to 
the world of which we are part. We look for an ever-in- 
creasing intercourse, a constantly developing exchange of com- 
modities, a steadily growing mutual understanding, and a con- 
tinually expanding friendly co-operation among all the peoples 
of the world. With regard to that great Commonwealth of all 
races, all colours, all religions and all degrees of civilisation, 
that we call the British Empire, the Labour Party stands for 
its maintenance and its progressive development on the lines 
of Local Autonomy and "Home Rule All Round"; the fullest 
respect for the rights of each people, whatever its colour, to all 
the Democratic Self-Government of which it is capable, and to 
the proceeds of its own toil upon the resources of its own ter- 
ritorial home; and the closest possible co-operation among all 
the various members of what has become essentially not an 
Empire in the old sense, but a Britannic Alliance. We desire to 
maintain the most intimate relations with the Labour Parties 
overseas. Like them, we have no sympathy with the projects 
of "Imperial Federation," in so far as these imply the sub- 
jection to a common Imperial Legislature wielding coercive 
power (including dangerous facilities for coercive Imperial 
taxation and for enforced military service), either of the ex- 
isting Self-Governing Dominions, whose autonomy would be 
thereby invaded; or of the United Kingdom, whose freedom 
of Democratic self-development would be thereby hampered; 
or of India and the Colonial Dependencies, which would there- 
by run the risk of being further exploited for the benefit of a 
"White Empire." We do not intend, by any such "Imperial 
Senate," either to bring the plutocracy of Canada and South 
Africa to the aid of the British aristocracy, or to enable the 
landlords and financiers of the Mother Country to unite in 
controlling the growing Popular Democracies overseas. The 
absolute autonomy of each self-governing part of the Empire 
must be maintained intact. What we look for, besides a 



APPENDIX IV 393 

constant progress in Democratic Self-Government of every part 
of the Britannic Alliance, and especially in India, is a con- 
tinuous participation of the Ministers of the Dominions, of 
India, and eventually of other Dependencies (perhaps by means 
of their own Ministers specially resident in London for this 
purpose) in the most confidential deliberations of the Cabinet, 
so far as Foreign Policy and Imperial Affairs are concerned; 
and the annual assembly of an Imperial Council, represent- 
ing all constituents of the Britannic Alliance and all parties 
in their Local Legislatures, which should discuss all matters 
of common interest, but only in order to make recommenda- 
tions for the simultaneous consideration of the various 
autonomous local legislatures of what should increasingly take 
the constitutional form of an Alliance of Free Nations. And 
we carry the idea further. As regards our relations to Foreign 
Countries, we disavow and disclaim any desire or intention to 
dispossess or to impoverish any other State or Nation. We 
seek no increase of territory. We disclaim all idea of "eco- 
nomic war." We ourselves object to all Protective Cus- 
toms Tariffs ; but we hold that each nation must be left free to 
do what it thinks best for its own economic development, with- 
out thought of injuring others. We believe that nations are 
in no way damaged by each other's economic prosperity or 
commercial progress; but, on the contrary, that they are 
actually themselves mutually enriched thereby. We would 
therefore put an end to the old entanglements and mystifica- 
tions of Secret Diplomacy and the formation of Leagues against 
Leagues. We stand for the immediate establishment, actually 
as a part of the Treaty of Peace with which the present war 
will end, of a Universal League or Society of Nations, a Super- 
national Authority, with an International High Court to try 
all justiciable issues between nations; an International Legis- 
lature to enact such common laws as can be mutually agreed 
upon, and an International Council of Mediation to endeavour 
to settle without ultimate conflict even those disputes which 
are not justiciable. We would have all the nations of the 
world most solemnly undertake and promise to make common 
cause against any one of them that broke away from this 
fundamental agreement. The world has suffered too much from 
war for the Labour Party to have any other policy than that 
of lasting Peace, 



394 APPENDIX IV 

The Labour Party is far from assuming that it possesses a 
key to open all locks ; or that any policy which it can formulate 
will solve all the problems that beset us. But we deem it im- 
portant to ourselves as well as to those who may, on the one 
hand, wish to join the Party, or, on the other, to take up arms 
against it, to make quite clear and definite our aim and pur- 
pose. The Labour Party wants that aim and purpose, as set 
forth in the preceding pages, with all its might. It calls for 
more warmth in politics, for much less apathetic acquiescence in 
the miseries that exist, for none of the cynicism that saps the 
life of leisure. On the other hand, the Labour Party has no 
belief in any of the problems of the world being solved by Good 
Will alone. Good Will without knowledge is Warmth without 
Light. Especially in all the complexities of politics, in the 
still undeveloped Science of Society, the Labour Party stands 
for increased study, for the scientific investigation of each 
succeeding problem, for the deliberate organisation of re- 
search, and for a much more rapid dissemination among the 
whole people of all the science that exists. And it is perhaps 
specially the Labour Party that has the duty of placing this 
Advancement of Science in the forefront of its political pro- 
gramme. What the Labour Party stands for in all fields of life 
is, essentially, Democratic Co-operation; and Co-operation in- 
volves a common purpose which can be agreed to; a common 
plan which can be explained and discussed, and such a measure 
of success in the adaptation of means to ends as will ensure a 
common satisfaction. An autocratic Sultan may govern with- 
out science if his whim is law. A Plutocratic Party may choose 
to ignore science, if it is heedless whether its pretended solu- 
tions of social problems that may win political triumphs ulti- 
mately succeed or fail. But no Labour Party can hope to main- 
tain its position unless its proposals are, in fact, the outcome of 
the best Political Science of its time; or to fulfil its purpose 
unless that science is continually wresting new fields from hu- 
man ignorance. Hence, although the Purpose of the Labour 
Party must, by the law of its being, remain for all time un- 
changed, its Policy and its Programme will, we hope, undergo 
a perpetual development, as knowledge grows, and as new 
phases of the social problem present themselves, in a con- 
tinually finer adjustment of our measures to our ends. If Law 
is the Mother of Freedom, Science, to the Labour Party, must 
be the Parent of Law. 



APPENDIX V 
RESOLUTIONS ON RECONSTRUCTION 

ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY, 
LONDON, JUNE 26, I918 

I. THE TASK OF SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION 

That, in the opinion of the conference, the task of social re- 
construction to be organised and undertaken by the govern- 
ment, in conjunction with the local authorities, ought to be 
regarded as involving, not any patchwork jerrymandering of 
the anarchic individualism and profiteering of the competitive 
capitalism of pre-war time — the breakdown of which, even 
from the standpoint of productive efficiency, the war has so 
glaringly revealed — but the gradual building up of a new social 
order, based not an internecine conflict, inequality of riches, 
and dominion over subject classes, subject races, or a subject 
sex, but on the deliberately planned co-operation in production, 
distribution and exchange, the systematic approach to a healthy 
equality, the widest possible participation in power, both eco- 
nomic and political, and the general consciousness of consent 
which characterise a true democracy; and, further, in order to 
help to realise the new social order and to give legislative effect 
to the labour policy on reconstruction, this conference em- 
phasizes the necessity of having in Parliament and the country 
a vigorous, courageous, independent, and unfettered political 
party. 

2. THE NEED FOR INCREASED PRODUCTION 

That the conference cannot help noticing how very far from 
efficient the capitalist system has been proved to be, with its 
stimulus of private profit, and its evil shadow of wages driven 
down by competition often below subsistence level; that the 
conference recognises that it is vital for any genuine social re- 
construction to increase the nation's aggregate annual produc- 

395 



396 APPENDIX V 

tion, not of profit or dividend, but of useful commodities and 
services; that this increased productivity is obviously not to be 
sought in reducing the means of subsistence of the workers, 
whether by hand or by brain, nor yet in lengthening their hours 
of work, for neither "sweating" nor "driving" can be made the 
basis of lasting prosperity, but in the socialisation of industry 
in order to secure 

(a) the elimination of every kind of inefficiency and waste; 

(b) the application both of more honest determination to 
produce the very best, and of more science and intelligence to 
every branch of the nation's work; together with 

(c) an improvement in social, political, and industrial or- 
ganisation; and 

(d) the indispensable marshalling of the nation's resources so 
that each need is met in the order of, and in proportion to, its 
real national importance. 

3- THE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF THE 
STANDARD OF LIFE 

(i.) That the conference holds that it is of supreme na- 
tional importance that there should not be any degradation 
of the standard of life of the population; and it insists that 
it is accordingly the duty of the government to see to it that, 
when peace comes, the standard rates of wages in all trades 
should, relatively to the cost of living, be fully maintained. 

(ii.) That it should be made clear to employers that any 
attempt to reduce the prevailing rates of wages when peace 
comes, or to take advantage of the dislocation of demobilisa- 
tion to worsen the conditions of Labour, will certainly lead to 
embittered industrial strife, which will be in the highest de- 
gree detrimental to the national interests; and the government 
should therefore take all possible steps to avert such a calamity. 

(iii.) That the government should not only, as the greatest 
employer of Labour, set a good example in this respect, but 
should also seek to influence employers by proclaiming in 
advance that it will not attempt to lower the standard rates 
or conditions in public employment, by announcing that it will 
insist on the most rigorous observance of the fair wages clause 
in public contracts, and by recommending every local authority 
to adopt the same policy. 

(iv.) That one of the most urgent needs of social recon- 



APPENDIX V 397 

struction is the universal application of the principle of the 
protection of the standard of life, at present embodied in the 
factories, workshops, merchant shipping, mines, railways, shops, 
truck, and trade boards acts, together with the corresponding 
provisions of the public health, housing, education, and work- 
men's compensation acts; that these imperfectly drafted and 
piecemeal statutes admittedly require extension and amend- 
ment at many points and supplementing by new legislation pro- 
viding among other industrial reforms for the general reduc- 
tion of the working week to forty-eight hours, securing to every 
worker, by hand or by brain, at least the prescribed minimum 
of health, education, leisure, and subsistence; and that, in par- 
ticular, the system of a legal basic wage, introduced by the trade 
boards act, the miners (minimum wage) act, and the wage 
board clauses of the corn production act, needs to be extended 
and developed, so as to ensure to every worker of either sex, in 
any occupation, in any part of the kingdom, as the very lowest 
statutory base line of wages (to be revised with every sub- 
stantial rise in prices), not less than enough to provide all the 
requirements of a full development of body, mind, and char- 
acter, from which the nation has no right to exclude any class 
or section whatsoever. 



4. THE PROVISION FOR THE SOLDIERS AND SAILORS 

That the conference realises that, as soon as peace is assured 
the position of the soldier or sailor will be one of great peril; 
that, whilst his services to the nation will be effusively praised, 
and promises will be made for a generous provision for his 
needs, there is only too much reason to fear that, unless a 
strong and continuous effort is made, both in Parliament and 
in the localities, administrative parsimony and red-tape will 
deprive many thousands of what is justly due to them. 

The conference accordingly holds that it is imperative that 
the provision to be made on demobilisation should not only be 
worked out in detail immediately, but that it should be pub- 
lished for general information, so that omissions may be de- 
tected, mistakes rectified, and every one made acquainted with 
the steps to be taken. 

The conference, noting the month's furlough, gratuity, free 
railway ticket, and a year's unemployment benefit if out of work 
already promised to the soldier, urges that 



398 APPENDIX V 

(a) there should be no gap between the cessation of his pay 
and separation allowance and the beginning of his unemploy- 
ment benefit, and 

(&) that this special ex-soldier's unemployment benefit given 
to all should be additional to any unemployment benefit under 
the National Insurance act, to which many men are already en- 
titled in respect of contributions deducted from their wages; 

(c) that the amount of the unemployment benefit should not 
be the present starvation pittance of 7s. per week, but at least 
approaching to the combined separation and rations allowances ; 
and 

(d) that, in view of the change in the value of money, the 
gratuity (which should be made payable through the Post Of- 
fice Savings Bank) ought to be, for the private, £20. 

The conference feels, however, that what the soldiers will 
most seriously look to is not the sum of money doled out to 
them, but the provision made for ensuring them situations ap- 
propriate to their capacities and desires: it declares that this 
duty of placing the demobilised soldier within reach of a 
suitable situation at the trade union standard rate is one for 
the government itself to discharge, without the intervention 
of charity or philanthropists. 

And the conference demands that the government should at 
once complete and make known the organization projected for 
fulfilling this duty, including appropriate arrangements for en- 
abling such of the men as wish it to obtain small holdings, for 
others to get such training for new occupations as they require, 
and for all to secure such posts in productive work or service 
as they are capable of filling, or, in the alternative, to be main- 
tained until such posts can be found. 

5. THE DISCHARGE OF CIVILIAN WAR WORKERS 

That this conference, realising the grave industrial condi- 
tions in which demobilisation will take place, demands that the 
same careful preparation and the same sort of provision should 
be made in advance for a systematic replacing in situations 
and for adequate maintenance until situations are found, with 
regard to the three million civil workers in war trades, and 
male or female substitutes for men now with the colours, as for 
the five millions to be discharged from the army. 



APPENDIX V 399 

6. THE RESTORATION OF TRADE UNION CONDITIONS 

(i.) That this conference reminds the government that it 
is pledged unreservedly and unconditionally, and the nation 
with it, in the most solemn manner, to the restoration after 
the war of all the rules, conditions, and customs that prevailed 
in the workshops before the war; and to the abrogation, when 
peace comes, of all the changes introduced not only in the 
national factories and the 5,000 controlled establishments, but 
also in the large number of others to which provisions of the 
munitions act have been applied. 

(ii.) That the conference places on record its confident ex- 
pectation and desire that if any employers should be so un- 
scrupulous as to hesitate to fulfil this pledge, the government 
will see to it that, in no industry and in no district, is any quib- 
bling evasion permitted of an obligation in which the whole 
labour movement has an interest. 

(iii.) In view of the unsatisfactory character of the provi- 
sions in the munitions act dealing with the restoration of trade 
union customs after the war, the conference calls upon the 
government to provide adequate statutory machinery for re- 
storation : — 

(a) By securing that all provisions in the acts necessary to 
enforce restoration shall continue in operation for a full year 
after the restrictive provisions abrogating trade union rules, 
and giving munitions tribunals disciplinary powers over work- 
men have been terminated. 

(b) By removing all restrictions upon the right of the work- 
men to strike for the restoration of the customs which have 
been abrogated. 

(c) By limiting compulsory arbitration strictly to the war 
period and providing fully that the right to prosecute an em- 
ployer for a failure to restore trade union customs shall con- 
tinue for a full year after the termination of the restrictive 
powers in the acts. 

(iv.) The conference further calls upon Parliament to limit 
all restrictive legislation directed against workpeople strictly 
to the war period, and, subject to the above exceptions, calls 
for the abrogation of the clauses restrictive of personal liberty 
in the munitions of war acts and in the defence of the realm 
acts, immediately upon the conclusion of hostilities. 

(v.) The conference, finally, urges that if it is considered 



4 oo APPENDIX V 

that some of the rules, conditions, and customs are, in the 
industrial reorganisation that is contemplated, inconsistent 
with the highest development of production, or injurious to 
other sections of workers, it is for the government, as re- 
sponsible for the fulfilment of the pledge, to submit for discus- 
sion to the trade unions concerned alternative proposals for 
securing the standard wage and normal day, protecting the 
workers from unemployment, and maintaining the position and 
dignity of the crafts. 

7- THE PREVENTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT 

That the conference cannot ignore the likelihood that the 
years immediately following the war will include periods of 
grave dislocation of profit-making industry, now in this trade 
or locality and now in that, when many thousands of willing 
workers will, if matters are left to private capitalism, probably 
be walking the streets in search of employment; that it is 
accordingly the duty of the ministry, before demobilisation is 
actually begun, so to arrange the next ten years' programme of 
national and local government works and services — includ- 
ing housing, schools, roads, railways, canals, harbours, affor- 
estation, reclamation, etc. — as to be able to put this programme 
in hand at such a rate and in such districts as any temporary 
congestion of the Labour market may require; that it is high 
time that the government laid aside the pretence that it has no 
responsibility for preventing unemployment; that now that it is 
known that all that is required to prevent the occurrence of 
any widespread or lasting unemployment is that the aggre- 
gate total demand for labour should be maintained, year in and 
year out, at an approximately even level, and that this can be 
secured by nothing more difficult or more revolutionary than a 
sensible distribution of the public orders for works and serv- 
ices so as to keep always up to the prescribed total the ag- 
gregate public and capitalist demand for labour, together with 
the prohibition of overtime in excess of the prescribed normal 
working day, there is no excuse for any government which al- 
lows such a grave social calamity as widespread or lasting un- 
employment ever to occur. 

8. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 

That to meet the needs of individuals temporarily out of 
work, the Labour Party holds that the best provision is the 



APPENDIX V 401 

out-of-work pay of a strong trade union, duly supplemented 
by the government subvention guaranteed by Part II, of the 
insurance act; that the government should at once restore the 
subvention now withdrawn by one of the least excusable of the 
war economies; that this subvention ought to be increased so 
as to amount to at least half the weekly allowance; and that 
for the succour of those for whom trade union organisation is 
not available the state unemployment benefit, raised to an 
adequate sum, should be made universally applicable in all in- 
dustries and occupations where objection is not taken by the 
trade union concerned to the compulsory inclusion of its mem- 
bers. 

9. THE COMPLETE EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN 

That the conference holds that the changes in the position of 
women during the war, in which they have rendered such good 
service, and the importance of securing to women as to men, the 
fullest possible opportunities for individual development, make 
it necessary to pay special attention in the reconstruction pro- 
gramme to matters affecting women; and, in particular, the 
conference affirms 

A. — With Regard to Industry on Demobilisation: — 

(i.) That work or maintenance at fair rates should be pro- 
vided for all women displaced from their employment to make 
way for men returning from service with the forces or other 
national work. 

(ii.) That full inquiry should be made into trades and proc- 
esses previously held to be unhealthy or in any way unsuitable 
for women, but now being carried on by them, with a view 
to making recommendations as to the conditions of their fur- 
ther employment in such trades. 

(iii.) That all women employed in trades formerly closed 
to them should only continue to be so employed at trade union 
rates of wages. 

(iv.) That trade unions should be urged to accept women 
members in all trades in which they are employed. 

(v.) That the principle of equal pay for similar duties 
should be everywhere adopted. 



402 APPENDIX V 

B. — With Regard to Civic Rights: — 

(i.) That all legal restrictions on the entry of women to 
the professions on the same conditions as men should be abro- 
gated. 

(ii.) That women should have all franchises, and be elig- 
ible for election to all public bodies (including Parliament), 
on the same conditions as men. 

(iii.) That systematic provision should be made for the in- 
clusion of women in committees or commissions, national or 
local, dealing with any subjects that are not of exclusively 
masculine interest. 

(iv.) That the present unjust provision of the income tax 
law, under which the married woman is not treated as an 
independent human being, even in respect of her own property 
or earnings, must be at once repealed. 

10. THE RESTORATION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY 

That this conference regards as fundamental the immediate 
repeal and abrogation, as soon as the war ends, of the whole 
system of the military service acts, and of all the provisions of 
the defence of the realm acts restricting freedom of speech, 
freedom of publication, freedom of the press, freedom of travel, 
and freedom of choice of residence or of occupation. 

II. POLITICAL REFORMS 

That the conference reaffirms its conviction that no lasting 
settlement of the question of political reform can be reached 
without a genuine adoption of 

(a) complete adult suffrage, with not more than three 
months' residential qualification; 

(b) absolutely equal rights for both sexes; 

(c) effective provision for absent electors to vote and the 
best practicable arrangements for ensuring that every minority 
has its proportionate and no more than its proportionate repre- 
sentation ; 

(d) the same civic rights for the soldiers and sailors, as for 
the officers; 

(e) shorter Parliaments; and 

(/) the complete abandonment of any attempt to control the 
people's representatives by a House of Lords. 



APPENDIX V 403 

That the conference especially protests against the defects 
of the representation of the people act of last year, which failed 
to give votes to women under thirty years of age, denied them 
the right to sit in parliament, maintained for both sexes an 
unnecessarily long period of residence as a qualification for 
the register, ignored the rights of the civilian electors who may 
be compulsorily away from home on polling day, and omitted 
any provision which would have prevented the scandal of large 
sections of the voters remaining unrepresented whilst members 
are returned to Parliament by a minority of the voting con- 
stituency. 

It protests, moreover, against civil servants being denied the 
right, which has long been enjoyed by army and navy officers, 
without at once resigning their appointments, of offering them- 
selves to the electors as Parliamentary candidates. 

This conference calls for the abolition of the House of 
Lords without replacement of any second chamber. The con- 
ference further protests against the disenfranchisement of con- 
scientious objectors. 

12. IRELAND 

That the conference unhesitatingly recognises the claim of 
the people of Ireland to Home Rule, and to self-determination 
in all exclusively Irish affairs; it protests against the stub- 
born resistance to a democratic reorganisation of Irish govern- 
ment maintained by those who, alike in Ireland and Great 
Britain, are striving to keep minorities dominant; and it de- 
mands that a wide and generous measure of Home Rule should 
be immediately passed into law and put in operation. 



I3. CONSTITUTIONAL DEVOLUTION 

That the conference regards as extremely grave the proved 
incapacity of the War Cabinet and the House of Commons to 
get through even the most urgently needed work; it considers 
that some early devolution from Westminster of both legisla- 
tion and administration is imperatively called for; it suggests 
that, along with the grant of Home Rule to Ireland, there should 
be constituted separate statutory legislative assemblies for Scot- 
land, Wales, and even England, with autonomous administra- 
tion in matters of local concern; and that the Parliament at 



4 o4 APPENDIX V 

Westminster should be retained in the form of a Federal As- 
sembly for the United Kingdom, controlling the ministers re- 
sponsible for the departments of the federal government, who 
would form also, together with ministers representing the 
dominions and India whenever these can be brought in, the 
Cabinet for Commonwealth affairs for the Britannic Common- 
wealth as a whole. 



14. LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

That in order to avoid the evils of centralisation and the 
drawbacks of bureaucracy, the conference suggests that the 
fullest possible scope should be given, in all branches of social 
reconstruction, to the democratically elected local governing 
bodies; that whilst the central government departments should 
assist with information and grants in aid, the local authorities 
should be given a free hand to develop their own services, over 
and above the prescribed national minimum, in whatever way 
they choose; that they should be empowered to obtain capital 
from the government at cost price, and to acquire land cheaply 
and expeditiously, for any of the functions with which they are 
entrusted. 

The conference holds, moreover, that the municipalities and 
county councils should not confine themselves to the neces- 
sarily costly services of education, sanitation, and police, and 
the functions to be taken over from the boards of guardians, 
nor yet rest content with acquiring control of the local water, 
gas, electricity and tramways, but that they should greatly 
extend their enterprises in housing and town planning, parks, 
and public libraries, the provision of music and the organisation'! 
of popular recreation, and also that they should be empowered 
to undertake, not only the retailing of coal, but also other 
services of common utility, particularly the local supply of milk, 
where this is not already fully and satisfactorily organised 
by a co-operative society. 

Further, that in view of the great and growing importance 
of local government, this conference thinks it high time that 
the councillors should again be required to submit themselves 
for election, that, on the first election, at any rate, the whole 
of each council should vacate their seats and the new council be 
elected on the principle of proportional representation, and that 
in order to throw the position open to all persons, rich or poor, 



APPENDIX V 405 

all councillors should be provided with payment for any neces- 
sary travelling expenses, and for the time spent on the public 
service. 

15. EDUCATION 

That the conference holds that the most important of all the 
measures ot social reconstruction must be a genuine nationalisa- 
tion of education, which shall get rid of all class distinctions 
and privileges, and bring effectively within the reach, not only 
of every boy and girl, but also of every adult citizen, all the 
training, physical, mental and moral, literary, technical, and 
artistic of which he is capable. 

That the conference, whilst appreciating the advances indi- 
cated by the proposals of the present minister of education, de- 
clares that the Labour Party cannot be satisfied with a system 
which condemns the great bulk of the children to merely ele- 
mentary schooling with accommodation and equipment inferior 
to that of the secondary schools, in classes too large for efficient 
instruction, under teachers of whom at least one-third are in- 
sufficiently trained; which denies to the great majority of the 
teachers in the kingdom, whether in elementary or in sec- 
ondary schools (and notably to most of the women), alike any 
opportunity for all-round culture, as well as for training in 
their art, an adequate wage, reasonable prospects of advance- 
ment, and suitable superannuation allowances; and which, not- 
withstanding what is yet done by way of scholarships for ex- 
ceptional geniuses, still reserves the endowed secondary schools, 
and even more the universities, for the most part, to the sons 
and daughters of a small privileged class, whilst contemplating 
nothing better than eight weeks a year continuation schooling 
up to 19 for 90 per cent of the youth of the nation. 

The conference accordingly asks for a systematic reorganisa- 
tion of the whole educational system, from the nursery school 
to the university, on the basis of 

(a) social equality. 

(&) the provision for each age, for child, youth, and adult, 
of the best and most varied education of which it is capable, 
and with due regard to its physical welfare and development, 
but without any form of military training; 

(c) the educational institutions, irrespective of social class or 
wealth, to be planned, equipped, and staffed according to their 
several functions, up to the same high level for elementary, sec- 



406 APPENDIX V 

ondary, or university teaching, with regard solely to the greatest 
possible educational efficiency, and free maintenance of such a 
kind as to enable the children to derive the full benefit of the 
education given ; and 

(d) the recognition of the teaching profession, without dis- 
tinction of grade, as one of the most valuable to the com- 
munity. 

16. HOUSING 

That the conference, noting the fact that the shortage of 
habitable cottages in the United Kingdom now exceeds one mil- 
lion, and that the rent and mortgages restriction act is due to 
expire six months after peace, regards a national campaign of 
cottage building at the public expense, in town and country 
alike, as the most urgent of social requirements. 

That the attention of the government be called to the fact 
that, unless steps are taken to insist that the local authorities 
acquire the necessary sites, prepare schemes, plans, and specifi- 
cations, and obtain all required sanctions, actually before the 
war ends there is very little chance of the half-a-million new 
cottages urgently needed in England, Scotland, Ireland, and 
Wales during the very first year of demobilisation being ready 
for occupation within that time. 

That it is essential that the "Million Cottages of the Great 
Peace," to be erected during the first two or three years after 
the war ends by the local authorities, with capital supplied by the 
national government, free of interest, and a grant-in-aid in 
one or other form at least sufficient to prevent the schemes in- 
volving any charge on the rates, should be worthy to serve as 
models to other builders ; and must accordingly be, not only 
designed with some regard to appearance, not identical through- 
out the land, but adapted to local circumstances, and soundly 
constructed, spacious, and healthy; including four or five 
rooms, larder, scullery, cupboards, and fitted bath but also suit- 
ably grouped not more than ten or twelve to the acre; and 
provided with sufficient garden ground. 

17. THE ABOLITION OF THE POOR LAW AND THE DEVELOPMENT 
OF THE MUNICIPAL HEALTH SERVICE 

That the conference notes with satisfaction the decision of 
the government both to establish a Ministry of Health and to 
abolish the whole system and organisation of the poor law. 



APPENDIX V 407 

It regards the immediate reorganisation, in town and country 
alike, of the public provision for the prevention and treatment 
of disease, and the care of the orphans, the infirm, the in- 
capacitated, and the aged needs institutional care, as an indis- 
pensable basis of any sound social reconstruction. 

It calls for the prompt carrying out of the government's 
declared intention of abolishing, not merely the boards of 
guardians, but also the hated workhouse and the poor law 
itself, and the merging of the work heretofore done for the 
destitute as paupers in that performed by the directly elected 
county, borough, and district councils for the citizens as such, 
without either the stigma of pauperism or the hampering limi- 
tations of the poor law system. 

It feels that only in connection with such a reorganisation of 
the local health services — urgently required to meet the dan- 
gers attendant on demobilisation — can a Ministry of Health 
be of effective advantage to the nation. 

l8. TEMPERANCE REFORM 

That the conference records its sense of the great social evil 
and national waste caused by the excessive consumption of 
alcoholic liquors, and by the unfortunate intemperance of a 
relatively small section of the population; that the conference 
sees the key to temperance reform in taking the entire manu- 
facture and retailing of alcoholic drink out of the hands of 
those who find profit in promoting the utmost possible con- 
sumption; and the conference holds that in conjunction with 
any expropriation of the private interests the electors of each 
locality should be enabled to decide, as they may see fit: 

(1) to prohibit the sale of alcoholic drink within their own 
boundaries ; 

(2) to reduce the number of places of sales, and to regulate 
the conditions of sale; 

(3) to determine, within the fundamental conditions pre- 
scribed by statute, the manner in which the public places of 
refreshment and social intercourse in their own districts 
should be organised and controlled. 

19. RAILWAYS AND CANALS 

That the conference insists on the retention in public hands 
of the railways and canals, and on the expropriation of the 



4 o8 APPENDIX V 

present stockholders on equitable terms, in order to permit of 
the organisation, in conjuction with the harbours and docks, 
and the posts and telegraphs, of a united national public 
service of communications and transport, to be worked, un- 
hampered by any private interest (and with a steadily increas- 
ing participation of the organised workers in the management, 
both central and local) exclusively for the common good. 

The conference places on record that if any government 
shall be so misguided as to propose, when peace comes, to hand 
the railways back to the shareholders, or should show itself so 
spendthrift of the nation's property as to give the companies 
any enlarged franchise by presenting them with the economics 
of unification or the profits of increased railway rates, or so 
extravagant as to bestow public funds on the re-equipment of 
privately-owned lines, the Labour Party will offer any such 
project its most strenuous opposition. 

20. THE NEW ELECTRICITY SUPPLY 

With regard to the generation of electricity for the provision, 
both for the factory and the home, of the cheapest possible 
power, light and heat, the conference declares that the Labour 
Party stands for the provision, by the government itself, of the 
score of gigantic super-power stations by which the whole 
kingdom could be supplied, and for thf linking up of the present 
municipal and joint stock services for distribution to factories 
and dwelling-houses at the lowest possible rates. 

The conference notifies that the Labour Party will offer 
the most strenuous opposition to this great national service 
being entrusted, on any terms whatsoever, to private capitalism. 

21. COAL AND IRON MINES 

That the conference urges that the coal mines, now under 
government control, should not be handed back to their cap- 
italist proprietors, but that the measure of nationalisation, 
which became imperative during the war, should be completed, 
at the earliest possible moment, by the expropriation on equit- 
able terms of all private interests in the extraction and distri- 
bution of the nation's coal (together with iron ore and other 
minerals). 

The conference asks that the supply of these minerals should 
henceforth be conducted as a public service (with a steadily 



APPENDIX V 409 

increasing participation in the management, both central and 
local, of the workers concerned), for the cheapest and most 
regular supply to industry of its chief source of power, the 
retail distribution of household coal, at a fixed price, summer 
and winter alike, and identical at all railway stations throughout 
the kingdom, being undertaken by the elected municipal district, 
or county council for the common good. 

22. LIFE ASSURANCE 

That the conference declares that, partly as a means of 
affording increased security to the tens of thousands of policy 
holders whose bonuses are imperilled by capital depreciation 
and war risks, and partly in order to free the nation from the 
burdensome and costly system of the industrial insurance com- 
panies, the state should take over (with equitable compensa- 
tion to all interests affected) the whole function of life as- 
surance, giving in place of the present onerous industrial 
insurance policies a universal funeral benefit free of charge; 
putting the whole class of insurance agents in the position of 
civil servants administering the state insurance business; de- 
veloping to the utmost the beneficial work of the friendly 
societies in independence and security, and organising, in con- 
junction with these societies, on the most approved principles, 
a safe and remunerative investment of popular savings. 

23. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL LIFE 

(i.) That the conference regards the present arrangements 
for the production and distribution of food in this country, 
and the life to which many thousands of country dwellers are 
condemned, as nothing short of a national disgrace, and as 
needing to be radically altered without delay. 

(ii.) That it is essential that the government should re- 
sume control of the nation's agricultural land, and ensure its 
utilisation not for rent, not for game, not for the social 
amenity of a small social class, not even for obtaining the 
largest percentage on the capital employed, but solely with a 
view to the production of the largest possible proportion of 
the foodstuffs required by the population of these islands under 
conditions allowing of a good life to the rural population and 
at a price not exceeding that for which foodstuffs can be 
brought from other lands. 



4 io APPENDIX V 

(iii.) That this end can probably best be attained by a 
combination of 

(a) government farms, administered on a large scale, with 
the utmost use of machinery; 

(&) small holdings made accessible to practical agriculturists; 

(c) municipal enterprises in agriculture, in conjunction with 
municipal institutions of various kinds, milk depots, sewage 
works, etc.; 

(d) farms let to co-operative societies and other tenants, 
under covenants requiring the kind of cultivation desired. 

(iv.) That under all systems the agricultural labourer must 
be secured a healthy and commodious cottage, with sufficient 
garden ground, the opportunity of getting an accessible allot- 
ment, and, when he so desires, a small holding, together with a 
wage continuously adequate for the requirements of body and 
mind. 

(v.) That the conference suggests that the distribution of 
foodstuffs in the towns — from milk and meat to bread and 
vegetables — should, with equitable compensation for all inter- 
ests expropriated and persons displaced, be taken out of the 
hands of the present multiplicity of dealers and shopkeepers, 
and organised by consumers, co-operative societies, and the 
local authorities working in conjunction. 

24. CONTROL OF CAPITALIST INDUSTRY 

That the conference insists, especially in view of the rapid 
development of amalgamations and trusts, on the necessity of 
retaining after the war, and of developing the present system 
of organising, controlling, and auditing the processes, profits, 
and prices of capitalist industry; that the economies of cen- 
tralised purchasing of raw materials, foodstuffs, and other 
imports must be continued, and, therefore, the "rationing" of 
all establishments under a collective control; that the pub- 
licity of processes thus obtained has a valuable effect in bring- 
ing inefficient firms up to a higher level; that the "costing" 
of manufacturers' processes and auditing of their accounts, 
so as to discover the necessary cost of production, together 
with the authoritative limitation of prices at the factory, the 
wholesale warehouse and the retail shop, affords, in industries 
not nationalised, the only security against the extortion of 
profiteering; and that it is as much the duty of the govern- 



APPENDIX V 411 

ment to protect the consumer by limiting prices as it is to 
protect the factory operative from unhealthy conditions, or 
the householder from the burglar. 

25. NATIONAL FINANCE 

1. That in view of the enormous debts contracted during 
the war, and of the necessity to lighten national financial bur- 
dens, this conference demands that an equitable system of con- 
scription of accumulated wealth should be put into operation 
forthwith, with exemption for fortunes below £1,000, and a 
graduated scale of rates for larger totals, believing that no sys- 
tem of taxation only of income or profits will yield enough 
to free the country from oppressive debts, and that any attempt 
to tax food or the other necessities of life would be unjust 
and ruinous to the masses of the people. 

2. That the only solution of the difficulties that have arisen 
is a system by which the necessary national income shall be 
derived mainly from direct taxation alike of land and accu- 
mulated wealth, and of income and profits, together with 
suitable imposts upon luxuries, and that the death duties and 
the taxation upon unearned incomes should be substantially 
increased and equitably regarded. 

3. That the whole system of land taxation should be re- 
vised so that by the direct taxation of the unearned increment 
of land values effect should be given to the fact that the land 
of the nation, which has been defended by the lives and suffer- 
ings of its people, shall belong to the nation, and be used for 
the nation's benefit. 

4. That this conference emphatically protests against the 
subjection of co-operative dividends to the excess profits tax 
and against the repeated attempts to bring co-operative divi- 
dends within the scope of the income tax. 

5. That as during the war the government has had to come 
to the assistance of the banking institutions of the country, and 
that it has been found necessary to pay very high rates for 
the money raised, adding considerably to the annual burden 
resulting from the war, whilst the banks are now pursuing a 
policy of fusion such as brings them near to the position of 
a monopoly, the Post Office Savings Bank should be developed 
into a national banking system for the common service of the 
whole community. 



4 i2 APPENDIX V, 

26. THE NEED FOR A "PEACE BOOK" 

That in the opinion of this conference the problem of the 
social and industrial reconstruction of Great Britain after the 
war is of such grave importance and of such vital urgency, 
that it is imperative, in order to avoid confusion in the period 
of demobilisation, that the main outlines of policy in all 
branches should be definitely formulated, upon the responsi- 
bility of the minister of reconstruction, before the war ends, 
so that they can be published in a Peace Book for public criti- 
cism before being finally adopted by the Cabinet, for the au- 
thoritative guidance of all ministers and heads of departments. 

27. "labour and the new social order" 

That the draft report on reconstruction, entitled Labour and 
the New Social Order, be revised after consideration of all the 
amendments suggested, and in accordance with the decisions 
of the conference, and that every constituent organisation be 
asked to report within four weeks how many copies it pro- 
poses to order for distribution to its branches and members. 



APPENDIX VI 

PLATFORM OF BRITISH LABOUR PARTY IN THE 
GENERAL ELECTIONS, DECEMBER, 1918 

Under the new constitution of the Labour Party it is 
the duty of the National Executive in conjunction with 
the Labour Party members of Parliament to define before 
any general election the particular issues which should be 
made the party programme. Following is the text of the 
resolution passed by an emergency conference November 14, 
1918, summarising the reconstruction policy of the party as 
embodied in the revised edition of the pamphlet "Labour and 
the Social Order": 

INTERNATIONAL 

Now that peace is at hand, the Labour Party feels justified 
in putting forward its demand that the promise made when 
its members joined the last Coalition Government in Decem- 
ber, 1916, that Labour should have representation at the official 
Peace Congress, should be redeemed. It reaffirms the declar- 
ation of the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conferences 
of February and September, 1918, that because of their re- 
sponse in defence of the principles of freedom the peoples 
have earned the right to wipe out all vestiges of the old idea 
that the Government belongs to or constitutes "a governing 
class." In determining issues that will vitally affect the lives 
and welfare of millions of wage-earners, justice requires that 
they should have direct representation in the Conferences 
authorised to make such decisions. 

In common with the other Labour and Socialist organisa- 
tions in the Allied countries, Labour also declared in favour of 
a World Labour Congress at the conclusion of hostilities with 
a view to the foundations of an effective League of Nations 
being laid upon a genuine democratic basis, and also in view 
of the need for an international agreement for the enforce- 

413 



4 i4 APPENDIX VI 

ment in all countries of uniform legislation on factory condi- 
tions, maximum working hours, the prevention of sweating 
and unhealthy trades, and similar industrial reforms. 

The Executive Committee, therefore, recommend that the 
Emergency Conference should adopt the following resolution : — 

"That this Special Emergency Conference of the Labour 
Party reaffirms the demand of the Inter-Allied Conferences of 
February and September, 1918 — 

"(1) That, in the official delegations from each of the bel- 
ligerent countries which formulate the Peace Treaty, the 
workers should have direct official representation. 

"(2) That a World Labour Congress should be held at the 
same time and place as the Peace Conference that will formu- 
late the Peace Treaty closing the war. 

"(3) That this Conference demands that the Government 
should afford facilities for the fulfilment of the above pro- 
posals." 

NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION 

The Labour Party protests against any patching up of the 
old economic order. It declines to go back to the conditions 
of penury and starvation which were all that society used to 
allow to millions of workers. It stands for such a systematic 
reconstruction of industrial and social relations as will give to 
the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their labour. 

The Labour Party demands the wide measures of reform that 
are described in "Labour and the New Social Order," which 
include : — 

1. A just and generous provision for the discharged soldiers 
and sailors, apart from either charity or the Poor Law, alike 
in respect of pensions, medical and surgical treatment, rein- 
statement in civil employment at trade union rates of wages, 
and complete security against involuntary unemployment. 

2. Full provision for the civil war workers to be discharged 
on the conclusion of the war, and others whom the dislocation 
of industry will throw out of work, including adequate arrange- 
ments for placing in new situations as soon as possible and 
maintenance during involuntary unemployment. 

3. The complete fulfilment of the nation's pledge to the 
trade unionists that they should be unconditionally reinstated 
in respect of the trade union conditions and workshop customs 



APPENDIX VI 415 

abrogated in the public interest; or else that the Government 
should submit for their acceptance measures calculated to 
achieve the same ends. 

4. The complete restoration of freedom of speech, publica- 
tion, travel, residence, and choice of occupation, and the aboli- 
tion of all compulsory military service. 

5. The completion of political democracy by adult suffrage, 
equal rights of voting for both sexes, and the abolition of any 
Second Chamber presuming to limit or control the supremacy 
of the popularly elected House of Commons. 

6. The immediate application to Ireland of the fullest pos- 
sible measure of Home Rule. 

7. Provision for the greatly increased efficiency of the 
Legislature by the devolution of English, Scottish, and Welsh 
business to separate local legislatures united in a Federal 
Parliament. 

8. The retention by the State of the railways and canals, 
the expropriation of the shareholders on equitable terms, and 
the organisation under public control, or a national system of 
transport worked for exclusively public objects. 

9. The retention by the State of the coal and iron mines, 
the expropriation of the present owners on equitable terms, 
and the organisation by the National Government and the local 
authorities of the supply of coal as a public service. 

10. The provision and management by the Government 
itself, in conjunction with the local authorities, of the proposed 
gigantic super-power stations by which electricity can be pro- 
vided at the lowest possible cost, without toll to the capitalist 
companies, for both industrial and domestic purposes. 

11. The effective maintenance of the standard of life for 
the whole nation by the suitable amendment and extension of 
the Factories, Mines, Trade Boards, and similar Acts. 

12. The revision of the rates, age for eligibility, and con- 
ditions of old-age pensions, so as to make the statutory pen- 
sion an absolute right of every person of pensionable age. 

13. The abolition of the Poor Law and the merging of its 
present services in those already rendered by the directly 
elected local authorities to the children, the sick and infirm 
(including maternity and infancy), the mentally defective, the 
aged, and the able-bodied unemployed, stimulated, aided, and 
controlled by an effective Ministry of Health, whilst suitable 



416 APPENDIX VI 

measures for the prevention of unemployment, and the secur- 
ing of situations for the unemployed are taken by a Ministry 
of Employment. 

14. The extension of the powers of county, borough, dis- 
trict, and parish councils, alike in respect of the acquisition 
of land, the reform of the system of assessment and rating, 
the obtaining of additional grants-in-aid, and freedom to under- 
take all the services desired by their constituents, together with 
the immediate resumption of local elections with proportional 
representation. 

15. The prompt carrying through of a comprehensive na- 
tional measure of housing, the local authorities being every- 
where required, with grants-in-aid sufficient to prevent any 
charge on the rates, to make good the whole of the existing 
shortage in well-planned, well-built, commodious, and healthy 
homes for the entire population. 

16. The reorganisation of agriculture and rural life by the 
resumption by the State of its ownership of the land, and its 
use as State farms, small holdings, and allotments, or coopera- 
tive enterprises, in such a way as to secure the greatest pos- 
sible production, not of game or of rent, but of the people's 
food, together with standard wages for all the workers em- 
ployed, adequate security for the farmer's enterprise, healthy 
dwellings for all the country population, and the development 
of village life and civilisation. 

17. A national system of education, free and effectively 
open to all persons, irrespective of their means, from the 
nursery school to the university; based on the principle of 
extending to persons of all ages, without distinction of class or 
wealth and without any taint of militarism, genuine opportuni- 
ties for the most effective education on a broad and liberal 
basis, and the provision for teachers of all kinds and grades 
of salaries, pensions, training, and opportunities of advance- 
ment commensurate with the high social importance of their 
calling. 

18. The nationalisation of life assurance, with equitable 
compensation to the shareholders and complete provision for 
all persons now employed, in order both to place beyond doubt 
the security of the existing policies and to supersede the 
present costly and objectionable system of industrial life assur- 



APPENDIX VI 417 

ance by a universal provision of funeral benefit, free from 
the weekly house-to-house collection of the people's pence. 

19. The protection of the public against the "money trust," 
now rapidly being formed through the banking amalgamations, 
by means of the development of the Post Office Savings Bank 
into a universal national banking system, carried on without 
capitalist control, and the nationalisation, with equitable com- 
pensation to the shareholders, of the banking companies to be 
absorbed. 

20. The most strenuous resistance to any attempt to saddle 
the cost of the war and the National Debt upon the consumers 
by any system of taxation of food or commodities of popular 
consumption, or by Customs or Excise duties on anything but 
luxuries, or by any special taxation of cooperative societies or 
of wages. The Labour Party would have the nation pay its way 
by adjusting taxation strictly according to the ability to bear 
it. This requires the raising of the exemption limit, a much 
steeper graduation and increase of the super-tax, the taking 
of unearned increment by the taxation of land values, the 
doubling or trebling of the death duties, and the "conscription 
of wealth." This means the substitution for a large part of 
the existing income-tax of a carefully graduated capital tax, 
exempting possessions under £1,000 and taxing very lightly 
those under £5,000. 

Other Resolutions 

This Conference is of opinion that in the new Parliament 
following the coming General Election the Labour Party should 
be free to promote its reconstruction policy in the most effec- 
tive manner that the Parliamentary situation will permit. It 
meantime declares that a General Election held for the pur- 
pose of choosing a Parliament to carry on the business of the 
country after the war terminates the conditions under which 
the party entered the Coalition, and it determines that the 
party shall resume its independence and withdraw its members 
from the Government at the close of the present Parliament. 

That in the official delegations from each of the belligerent 
countries which formulate the Peace Treaty the workers should 
have direct official representation; 

That a World Labour Congress should be held at the same 
time and place as the Peace Conference that will formulate the 
Peace Treaty closing the war. 



APPENDIX VII 

INTERIM REPORT ON JOINT STANDING INDUSTRIAL 
COUNCILS 

SUB-COMMITTEE ON RELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND 
EMPLOYED J RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE 

To the Right Honourable D. Lloyd George, M. P., Prime 
Minister. 
Sir, We have the honour to submit the following Interim 
Report on Joint Standing Industrial Councils. 

2. The terms of reference to the Sub-Committee are: — 
"(i) To make and consider suggestions for securing a per- 
manent improvement in the relations between employers and 
workmen. 

"(2) To recommend means for securing that industrial con- 
ditions affecting the relations between employers and work- 
men shall be systematically reviewed by those concerned, with a 
view to improving conditions in the future." 

3. After a general consideration of our duties in relation to 
the matters referred to us, we decided first to address ourselves 
to the problem of establishing permanently improved relations 
between employers and employed in the main industries of the 
country, in which there exist representative organisations on 
both sides. The present report accordingly deals more espe- 
cially with these trades. We are proceeding with the con- 
sideration of the problems connected with the industries which 
are less well organised. 

4. We appreciate that under the pressure of the war both 
employers and workpeople and their organisations are very 
much preoccupied, but, notwithstanding, we believe it to be 
of the highest importance that our proposals should be put 
before those concerned without delay, so that employers and 
employed may meet in the near future and discuss the problems 
before them. 

418 



APPENDIX VII 419 

5. The circumstances of the present time are admitted on 
all sides to offer a great opportunity for securing a permanent 
improvement in the relations between employers and employed, 
while failure to utilise the opportunity may involve the nation 
in grave industrial difficulties at the end of the war. 

It is generally allowed that the war almost enforced some 
reconstruction of industry, and in considering the subjects re- 
ferred to us we have kept in view the need for securing in the 
development of reconstruction the largest possible measure of 
co-operation between employers and employed. 

In the interests of the community it is vital that after the 
war the co-operation of all classes, established during the 
war, should continue, and more especially with regard to the 
relations between employers and employed. For securing im- 
provement in the latter, it is essential that any proposals put 
forward should offer to workpeople the means of attaining 
improved conditions of employment and a higher standard of 
comfort generally, and involve the enlistment of their active 
and continuous co-operation in the promotion of industry. 

To this end, the establishment for each industry of an organ- 
isation, representative of employers and workpeople, to have as 
its object the regular consideration of matters affecting the 
progress and well-being of the trade from the point of view 
of all those engaged in it, so far as this is consistent with the 
general interest of the community, appears to us necessary. 

6. Many complicated problems have arisen during the war 
which have a bearing both on employers and workpeople, and 
may affect the relations between them. It is clear that in- 
dustrial conditions will need careful handling if grave difficul- 
ties and strained relations are to be avoided after the war has 
ended. The precise nature of the problems to be faced naturally 
varies from industry to industry, and even from branch to 
branch within the same industry. Their treatment consequently 
will need an intimate knowledge of the facts and circumstances 
of each trade, and such knowledge is to be found only among 
those directly connected with the trade. 

7. With a view to providing means for carrying out the 
policy outlined above, we recommend that His Majesty's Gov- 
ernment should propose without delay to the various associa- 
tions of employers and employed the formation of Joint Stand- 
ing Industrial Councils in the several industries, where they 
do not already exist, composed of representatives of employers 



420 APPENDIX VII 

and employed, regard being paid to the various sections of the 
industry and the various classes of labour engaged. 

8. The appointment of a Chairman or Chairmen should, 
we think, be left to the Council who may decide that these 
should be — 

(i) A Chairman for each side of the Council; 

(2) A Chairman and Vice-Chairman selected from the mem- 
bers of the Council (one from each side of the Council) ; 

(3) A Chairman chosen by the Council from independent 
persons outside the industry; or 

(4) A Chairman nominated by such person or authority as 
the Council may determine or, failing agreement, by the Gov- 
ernment. 

9. The Council should meet at regular and frequent intervals. 

10. The objects to which the consideration of the Councils 
should be directed should be appropriate matters affecting the 
several industries and particularly the establishment of a closer 
co-operation between employers and employed. Questions con- 
nected with demobilisation will call for early attention. 

11. One of the chief factors in the problem, as it at first 
presents itself, consists of the guarantees given by the Govern- 
ment, with Parliamentary sanction, and the various undertak- 
ings entered into by employers, to restore the Trade Union 
rules and customs suspended during the war. While this does 
not mean that all the lessons learnt during the war should be 
ignored, it does mean that the definite co-operation and acquies- 
cence by both employers and employed must be a condition of 
any setting aside of these guarantees or undertakings, and that, 
if new arrangements are to be reached, in themselves more 
satisfactory to all parties but not in strict accordance with the 
guarantees, they must be the joint work of employers and 
employed. 

12. The matters to be considered by the Councils must 
inevitably differ widely from industry to industry, as different 
circumstances and conditions call for different treatment, but 
we are of opinion that the suggestions set forth below ought 
to be taken into account, subject to such modification in each 
case as may serve to adapt them to the needs of the various 
industries. 

13. In the well-organised industries, one of the first ques- 
tions to be considered should be the establishment of local and 
works organisations to supplement and make more effective the 



APPENDIX VII 421 

work of the central bodies. It is not enough to secure co-opera- 
tion at the centre between the national organisations; it is 
equally necessary to enlist the activity and support of employers 
and employed in the districts and in individual establishments. 
The National Industrial Council should not be regarded as 
complete in itself; what is needed is a triple organisation — in 
the workshops, the districts, and nationally. Moreover, it is 
essential that the organisation at each of these three stages 
should proceed on a common principle, and that the greatest 
measure of common action between them should be secured. 

14. With this end in view, we are of opinion that the fol- 
lowing proposals should be laid before the National Industrial 
Councils : — 

(a) That District Councils, representative of the Trade 
Unions and of the Employers' Association in the industry, 
should be created, or developed out of the existing machinery 
for negotiation in the various trades. 

(b) That Works Committees, representative of the man- 
agement and of the workers employed, should be instituted 
in particular works to act in close co-operation with the 
district and national machinery. 

As it is of the highest importance that the scheme making 
provision for these Committees should be such as to secure the 
support of the Trade Unions and Employers' Associations con- 
cerned, its design should be a matter for agreement between 
these organisations. 

Just as regular meetings and continuity of co-operation are 
essential in the case of the National Industrial Councils, so 
they seem to be necessary in the case of the district and works 
organisations. The object is to secure co-operation by grant- 
ing to workpeople a greater share in the consideration of mat- 
ters affecting their industry, and this can only be achieved by 
keeping employers and workpeople in constant touch. 

15. The respective functions of Works Committees, District 
Councils, and National Councils will no doubt require to be 
determined separately in accordance with the varying conditions 
of different industries. Care will need to be taken in each 
case to delimit accurately their respective functions, in order 
to avoid overlapping and resulting friction. For instance, 
where conditions of employment are determined by national 
agreements, the District Councils or Works Committees should 
not be allowed to contract out of conditions so laid down, nor, 



422 APPENDIX VII 

where conditions are determined by local agreements, should 
such power be allowed to Works Committees. 

1 6. Among the questions with which it is suggested that the 
National Councils should deal or allocate to District Councils 
or Works Committees the following may be selected for special 
mention : — 

(i) The better utilisation of the practical knowledge and 
experience of the workpeople. 

(ii) Means for securing to the workpeople a greater share 
in and responsibility for the determination and observance 
of the conditions under which their work is carried on. 

(iii) The settlement of the general principles governing 
the conditions of employment, including the methods of fixing, 
paying, and readjusting wages, having regard to the need 
for securing to the workpeople a share in the increased 
prosperity of the industry. 

(iv) The establishment of regular methods of negotiation 
for issues arising between employers and workpeople, with a 
view both to the prevention of differences, and to their bet- 
ter adjustment when they appear. 

(v) Means of ensuring to the workpeople the greatest 
possible security of earnings and employment, without undue 
restriction upon change of occupation or employer. 

(vi) Methods of fixing and adjusting earnings, piece- 
work prices, &c, and of dealing with the many difficulties 
which arise with regard to the method and amount of pay- 
ment apart from the fixing of general standard rates, which 
are already covered by paragraph (iii). 

(vii) Technical education and training. 

(viii) Industrial research and the full utilisation of its re- 
sults. 

(ix) The provision of facilities for the full consideration 
and utilisation of inventions and improvement designed by 
workpeople, and for the adequate safeguarding of the rights 
of the designers of such improvements. 

(x) Improvments of processes, machinery and organisation 
and appropriate questions relating to management and the 
examination of industrial experiments, with special refer- 
ence to co-operation in carrying new ideas into effect and full 
consideration of the workpeople's point of view in relation to 
them. 

(xi) Proposed legislation affecting the industry. 



APPENDIX VII 423 

17. The methods by which the functions of the proposed 
Councils should be correlated to those of joint bodies in the 
different districts, and in the various works within the districts, 
must necessarily vary according to the trade. It may, therefore, 
be the best policy to leave it to the trades themselves to form- 
ulate schemes suitable to their special circumstances, it being 
understood that it is essential to secure in each industry the 
fullest measure of co-operation between employers and em- 
ployed, both generally, through the National Councils, and spe- 
cifically, through district Committees and workshop Committees. 

18. It would seem advisable that the Government should 
put the proposals relating to National Industrial Councils be- 
fore the employers' and workpeoples' associations and request 
them to adopt such measures as are needful for their establish- 
ment where they do not already exist. Suitable steps should 
also be taken, at the proper time, to put the matter before 
the general public. 

19. In forwarding the proposals to the parties concerned, 
we think the Government should offer to be represented in an 
advisory capacity at the preliminary meetings of a Council, if 
the parties so desire. We are also of opinion that the Govern- 
ment should undertake to supply to the various Councils such 
information on industrial subjects as may be available and 
likely to prove of value. 

20. It has been suggested that means must be devised 
to safeguard the interests of the community against possible 
action of an anti-social character on the part of the Councils. 
We have, however, here assumed that the Councils, in their 
work of promoting the interests of their own industries, will 
have regard for the National interest. If they fulfil their func- 
tions they will be the best builders of national prosperity. The 
State never parts with its inherent over-riding power, but 
such power may be least needed when least obtruded. 

21. It appears to us that it may be desirable at some later 
stage for the State to give the sanction of law to agreements 
made by the Councils, but the initiative in this direction should 
come from the Councils themselves. 

22. The plans sketched in the foregoing paragraphs are 
applicable in the form in which they are given only to industries 
in which there are responsible associations of employers and 
workpeople which can claim to be fairly representative. The 
case of the less well-organised trades or sections of a trade 



424 APPENDIX VII 

necessarily needs further consideration. We hope to be in a 
position shortly to put forward recommendations that will pre- 
pare the way for the active utilisation in these trades of the 
same practical co-operation as is foreshadowed in the proposals 
made above for the more highly-organised trades. 

23. It may be desirable to state here our considered opinion 
that an essential condition of securing a permanent improvement 
in the relations between employers and employed is that there 
should be adequate organisation on the part of both employers 
and workpeople. The proposals outlined for joint co-operation 
throughout the several industries depend for their ultimate suc- 
cess upon there being such organisation on both sides ; and such 
organisation is necessary also to provide means whereby the 
arrangements and agreements made for the industry may be 
effectively carried out. 

24. We have thought it well to refrain from making sug- 
gestions or offering opinions with regard to such matters as 
profit-sharing, co-partnership, or particular systems of wages, 
&c. It would be impracticable for us to make any useful 
general recommendations on such matters, having regard to the 
varying conditions in different trades. We are convinced, 
moreover, that a permanent improvement in the relations be- 
tween employers and employed must be founded upon some- 
thing other than a cash basis. What is wanted is that the 
workpeople should have a greater opportunity of participating 
in the discussion about and adjustment of those parts of in- 
dustry by which they are most affected. 

25. The schemes recommended in this Report are intended 
not merely for the treatment of industrial problems when they 
have become acute, but also, and more especially, to prevent 
their becoming acute. We believe that regular meetings to 
discuss industrial questions, apart from and prior to any differ- 
ences with regard to them that may have begun to cause friction, 
will materially reduce the number of occasions on which, in 
the view of either employers or employed, it is necessary to 
contemplate recourse to a stoppage of work. 

26. We venture to hope that representative men in each 
industry, with pride in their calling and care for its place as 
a contributor to the national well-being, will come together in 
the manner here suggested, and apply themselves to promoting 
industrial harmony and efficiency and removing the obstacles 
that have hitherto stood in the way. 



APPENDIX VII 425 

J. H. Whitley, Chairman, F. S. Button, Geo. J. Carter, S. J. 
Chapman, G. H. Claughton, J. R. Clynes, J. A. Hobson, A. Susan 
Lawrence, J. J. Mallon, Thos. R. Ratcliffe- Ellis, Robt. Smillie, 
Allan M. Smith, Mona Wilson. 

H. J. Wilson, Arthur Greenwood, Secretaries. 

8th March, 1917. 

The following questions were addressed by the Reconstruction 
Committee to the Sub-Committee on the Relations between Em- 
ployers and Employed in order to make clear certain points which 
appeared to call for further elucidation. The answers given are 
subjoined. 

Q. 1. In what classes of Industries does the Interim Report pro- 
pose that Industrial Councils shall be established? What basis of 
classiUcation has the Sub-Committee in view? 

A. 1. It has been suggested that, for the purpose of con- 
sidering the establishment of Industrial Councils, or other 
bodies designed to assist in the improvement of relations be- 
tween employers and employed, the various industries should 
be grouped into three classes — (a) industries in which organ- 
isation on the part of employers and employed is sufficiently 
developed to render the Councils representative; (&) industries 
in which either as regards employers and employed, or both, 
the degree of organisation, though considerable, is less marked 
than in (a) and is sufficient to be regarded as representa- 
tive; and (c) industries in which organisation is so imperfect, 
either as regards employers or employed, or both, that no 
Associations can be said adequately to represent those engaged 
in the trade. 

It will be clear that an analysis of industries will show a 
number which are on the border lines between these groups 
and special consideration will have to be given to such trades. 
So far as groups (a) and (c) are concerned, a fairly large 
number of trades can readily be assigned to them; group (b) 
is necessarily more indeterminate. 

For trades in group (a) the Committee have proposed the 
establishment of Joint Standing Industrial Councils in the sev- 
eral trades. In dealing with the various industries it may be 
necessary to consider specially the case of parts of industries in 
group (a) where organisation is not fully developed. 

Q. 2. Is the machinery proposed intended to be in addition to or 
in substitution for existing machinery? Is it proposed that exist- 
ing machinery should be superseded? By "existing machinery" is 
meant Conciliation Boards and all other organisations for joint 
conference and discussion between Employers and Employed. 



426 APPENDIX VII 

A. 2. In most organised trades there already exist joint 
bodies for particular purposes. It is not proposed that the 
Industrial Councils should necessarily disturb these existing 
bodies. A council would be free, if it chose and if the bodies 
concerned approved, to merge existing Committees, &c, in the 
Council or to link them with the Council as Sub-Committees. 

Q. 3. Is it understood that membership of the Councils is to be 
confined to representatives elected by Employers' Associations and 
Trade Unions? What is the view of the Sub-Committee regarding 
the entry of new organisations established after the Councils have 
been set up? 

A. 3. It is intended that the Councils should be composed 
only of representatives of Trade Unions and Employers' Asso- 
ciations, and that new organisations should be admitted only 
with the approval of the particular side of the Council of which 
the organisation would form a part. 

Q. 4. (a) — Is it intended that decisions reached by the Councils 
shall be binding upon the bodies comprising them? If so, is such 
binding effect to be conditional upon the consent of each Employers' 
Association or Trade Union affected? 

A. 4. (a) It is contemplated that agreements reached by 
Industrial Councils should (whilst not of course possessing the 
binding force of law) carry with them the same obligation of 
observance as exists in the case of other agreements between 
Employers' Associations and Trade Unions. A Council, being 
on its workmen's side based on the Trade Unions concerned in 
the industry, its powers or authority could only be such as the 
constituent Trade Unions freely agreed to. 

Q. 4. (b) In particular, is it intended that all pledges given either 
by the Government or employers for the restoration of Trade Union 
rules and practices after the war shall be redeemed without quali- 
fication unless the particular Trade Union concerned agrees to 
alteration; or, on the contrary, that the Industrial Council shall have 
power to decide such question by a majority vote of the workmen's 
representatives from all the Trade Unions in the industry? 

A. 4. (&) It is clearly intended that all pledges relating 
to the restoration of Trade Union rules shall be redeemed with- 
out qualification unless the particular Trade Union concerned 
agrees to alteration; and it is not intended that the Council 
shall have power to decide such questions by a majority vote 
of the workmen's representatives from all the Trade Unions 
in the industry. 



APPENDIX VIII 

SECOND REPORT ON JOINT STANDING INDUSTRIAL 
COUNCILS 

COMMITTEE ON RELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYED; 
MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION 

To the Right Honourable D. Lloyd George, M. P., Prime 
Minister. 

Sir, Following the proposals made in our first Report, we 
have now the honour to present further recommendations 
dealing with industries in which organisation on the part of 
employers and employed is less completely established than in 
the industries covered by the previous Report, and with in- 
dustries in which such organisation is weak or non-existent. 

2. Before commencing the examination of these industries 
the Committee came to the conclusion that it would materially 
assist their enquiries if they could have the direct advantage 
of the knowledge and experience of some representative em- 
ployers who were connected with industries of the kind with 
which the Committee were about to deal; and it was arranged, 
with your approval, that Sir Maurice Levy, Mr. F. N. Hep- 
worth, Mr. W. Hill, and Mr. D. R. H. Williams should be 
appointed to act with the Committee while these industries were 
under consideration. This arrangement made it possible to 
release from attendance at the earlier meetings of the Com- 
mittee Sir Gilbert Claughton, Sir T. Ratcliffe-Ellis, Sir 
George J. Carter, and Mr. Allan Smith, whose time is greatly 
occupied in other public work and whose experience is more 
particularly related to the organised trades covered by our 
former Report. 

3. It is difficult to classify industries according to the degree 
of organisation among employers and employed, but for con- 
venience of consideration the industries of the country may be 
divided into three groups: — 

427 



428 APPENDIX VIII 

Group A. — Consisting of industries in which organisation 
on the part of employers and employed is sufficiently de- 
veloped to render their respective associations representative 
of the great majority of those engaged in the industry. 
These are the industries which we had in mind in our first 
Interim Report. 

Group B. — Comprising those industries in which, either as 
regards employers and employed, or both, the degree of 
organisation, though considerable, is less marked than in 
Group A. 

Group' C. — Consisting of industries in which organisation is 
so imperfect, either as regards employers or employed, or 
both, that no associations can be said adequately to repre- 
sent those engaged in the industry. 

The present Report is concerned with Groups B. and C. 

4. So far as Groups A. and C. are concerned, a number 
of industries can be definitely assigned to them. Group B., 
however, is necessarily more indeterminate. Some of the in- 
dustries in this group approach closely to industries in Group 
A, while others verge upon Group C. Further, most industries, 
in whatever class they may fall, possess a "tail," consisting of 
badly organised areas, or sections of the industry. These facts 
we have borne in mind in formulating our further proposals. 

5. So far as industries in Group B. are concerned, we are 
of opinion that the proposals of our First Report should, in 
their main lines, be applied to those which, on examination 
by the Ministry of Labour in consultation with the Associations 
concerned, are found to be relatively well organised. We sug- 
gest, however, that where in these industries a National In- 
dustrial Council is formed there should be appointed one or at 
most two official representatives to assist in the initiation of 
the Council, and continue after its establishment to act in an 
advisory capacity and serve as a link with the Government. We 
do not contemplate that a representative so appointed should 
be a member of the National Industrial Council, in the sense 
that he should have power, by a vote, to influence the decisions 
of the Council, but that he should attend its meetings and assist 
in any way which may be found acceptable to it. By so doing 
he would acquire a continuous knowledge of the conditions of 
the industry of which the Government could avail itself, and so 
avoid many mistakes that under present conditions are inevit- 
able. 



APPENDIX VIII 429 

The question of the retention of the official representatives 
should be considered by the Councils in the light of experience 
gained when an adequate time has elapsed. We anticipate that 
in many cases their continued assistance will be found of value 
even after an industry has attained a high degree of organisa- 
tion, but in no case should they remain except at the express 
wish of the Councils concerned. 

6. It may be that in some Group B. industries in which a 
National Industrial Council is formed certain areas are well 
suited to the establishment of District Councils, while in other 
areas the organisation of employers or employed, or both, is 
too weak to be deemed representative. There appears to be no 
good reason why in the former areas there should not be 
District Industrial Councils, acting in conjunction with the 
National Industrial Councils, in accordance with the principles 
formulated in the Committee's earlier report on the well- 
organised trades. 

.7. An examination of some of the industries coming within 
Group B. may show that there are some which, owing to the 
peculiarities of the trades and their geographical distribution, 
cannot at present be brought readily within the scope of the 
proposals for a National Industrial Council, though they may 
be quite well organised in two or more separate districts. In 
such a case we think there might well be formed one or more 
District Industrial Councils. We anticipate that in course of 
time the influence of the District Councils would be such that 
the industry would become suitable for the establishment of 
a National Industrial Council. 

8. In the case of industries in Group B. (as in the industries 
covered by our first Report), we consider that the members of 
the National Councils and of the District Councils should be 
representatives of the Employers' Associations and Trade 
Unions concerned. In the formation of the Councils, regard 
should be paid to the various sections of the industry and 
the various classes of labour engaged, and the representatives 
should include representatives of women's organisations. In 
view of the extent to which women are employed in these in- 
dustries, we think the Trade Unions, when selecting their rep- 
resentatives for the Councils, should include a number of 
women among those who are appointed to be members. 

9. It does not appear to us necessary or desirable to sug- 
gest any fixed standard of organisation which should exist in 



430 APPENDIX VIII 

any industry before a National Industrial Council should be 
established. The case of each industry will need to be con- 
sidered separately, regard being paid to its particular circum- 
stances and characteristics. 

In the discussion of this matter, we have considered whether 
it would be feasible to indicate a percentage of organisation 
which should be reached before a Council is formed, but, in 
view of the great diversity of circumstances in these industries 
and of the differing degrees to which the several sections of 
some of them are organised, we have come to the conclusion 
that it is more desirable to leave the matter to the decision 
of the Ministry of Labour and the organisations concerned. 
Whatever theoretical standard may be contemplated, we think 
its application should not be restrictive in either direction. 

10. The level of organisation in industries in Group C, 
is such as to make the scheme we have proposed for National 
or District Industrial Councils inapplicable. To these industries 
the machinery of the Trade Boards Act might well be applied, 
pending the development of such degree of organisation as 
would render feasible the establishment of a National Council or 
District Councils. 

ii. The Trade Boards Act was originally intended to secure 
the establishment of a minimum standard of wages in certain 
unorganised industries, but we consider that the Trade Boards 
should be regarded also as a means of supplying a regular 
machinery for negotiation and decision on certain groups of 
questions dealt with in other circumstances by collective bar- 
gaining between employers' organisations and trade unions. 

In order that the Trade Boards Act may be of greater utility 
in connection with unorganised and badly organised industries 
or sections of industries, we consider that certain modifications 
are needed to enlarge the functions of the Trade Boards. We 
suggest that they should be empowered to deal not only with 
minimum rates of wages but with hours of labour and questions 
cognate to wages and hours. We are of opinion also that the 
functions of the Trade Boards should be extended so as to 
enable them to initiate and conduct enquiries on all matters af- 
fecting the industry or the section of the industry concerned. 

12. If these proposals were adopted, there would be set up, 
in a number of industries or sections of industries, Trade 
Boards (consisting of representatives of employers and em- 
ployed, together with "appointed members") who would, within 



APPENDIX VIII 431 

the scope of their functions, establish minimum standard rates 
and conditions applicable to the industry or section of the in- 
dustry which they represented, and consider systematically mat- 
ters affecting the well-being of the industry. 

13. Where an industry in Group C. becomes sufficiently 
organised to admit of the institution of National and District 
Councils, we consider that these bodies should be set up on 
the lines already indicated. Where it appears to a Trade Board 
that an Industrial Council should be appointed in the industry 
concerned, they should have power (a) to make application to 
the Minister of Labour asking him to approach the organisa- 
tions of employers and employed, and (b) to suggest a scheme 
by which the representation of the workers' and employers' 
sides of the Trade Board could be secured. 

14. Whether in industries in Group C. the establishment 
of Works Committees is to be recommended is a question 
which calls for very careful examination, and we have made 
the general question of Works Committees the subject of a 
separate Report. 

15. We have already pointed out that most of the industries 
in Groups A. and B. have sections or areas in which the degree 
of organisation among the employers and employed falls much 
below what is normal in the rest of the industry; and it 
appears to us desirable that the general body of employers 
and employed in any industry should have some means whereby 
they may bring the whole of the trade up to the standard 
of minimum conditions which have been agreed upon by a 
substantial majority of the industry. We therefore recom- 
mend that, on the application of a National Industrial Council 
sufficiently representative of an industry, the Minister of 
Labour should be empowered, if satisfied that the case is a 
suitable one, to make an Order either instituting for a sec- 
tion of the industry a Trade Board on which the National 
Industrial Council should be represented, or constituting the 
Industrial Council a Trade Board under the provisions of 
the Trade Boards Act. These proposals are not intended to 
limit, but to be in addition to, the powers at present held by 
the Ministry of Labour with regard to the establishment of 
Trade Boards in trades and industries where they are con- 
sidered by the Ministry to be necessary. 

16. We have already indicated (paragraph 9) that the cir- 
cumstances and characteristics of each of the several industries 



432 APPENDIX VIII 

will need to be considered before it can be decided definitely 
how far any of our proposals can be applied in particular 
instances, and we have refrained from attempting to suggest 
any exact degree of organisation which would be requisite 
before a particular proposal could be applied. We think, how- 
ever, that the suggestion we have made in the preceding para- 
graph to confer upon a National Industrial Council the powers 
of a Trade Board should be adopted only in those cases in 
which the Minister of Labour is satisfied that the Council 
represents a substantial majority of the industry concerned. 

17. We are of opinion that most of the chief industries of 
the country could be brought under one or other of the schemes 
contained in this and the preceding Report. There would then 
be broadly two classes of industries in the country — industries 
with Industrial Councils and industries with Trade Boards. 

18. In the former group the National Industrial Councils 
would be constituted either in the manner we have indicated 
in our first Report, carrying with them District Councils and 
Works Committees, or on the lines suggested in the present 
Report, i. e., each Council coming within the scope of this 
Report having associated with it one, or two, official represen- 
tatives to act in an advisory capacity and as a link with the 
Government, in addition to the representatives of the em- 
ployers and employed. 

19. It should be noted that in the case of industries in 
which there is a National Industrial Council, Trade Boards 
might, in some instances, be associated with the Council in 
order to determine wages and hours, &c. in certain sections 
or areas. It is possible that in some allied trades, really form- 
ing part of the same industry, both sets of proposals might, in 
the first instance, be in operation side by side, one trade having 
its Industrial Council and the other its Trade Board. Where 
these circumstances obtain, we anticipate that the Trade Board 
would be a stepping stone to the full Industrial Council status. 

20. It may be useful to present a brief outline of the pro- 
posals which we have so far put forward: — 

(a) In the more highly organised industries (Group A.) we 
propose a triple organisation of national, district, and 
workshop bodies, as outlined in our first Report. 

(&) In industries where there are representative associations 
of employers and employed, which, however, do not 
possess the authority of those in Group A. industries, 



APPENDIX VIII 433 

we propose that the triple organisation should be mod- 
ified by attaching to each National Industrial Council 
one or at most two representatives of the Ministry of 
Labour to act in an advisory capacity. 

(c) In industries in both Groups A. and B., we propose that 

unorganised areas or branches of an industry should 
be provided, on the application of the National In- 
dustrial Council and with the approval of the Ministry 
of Labour, with Trade Boards for such areas or 
branches, the Trade Boards being linked with the In- 
dustrial Council. 

(d) In industries having no adequate organisation of em- 

ployers or employed, we recommend that Trade Boards 
should be continued or established, and that these 
should, with the approval of the Ministry of Labour, 
be enabled to formulate a scheme for an Industrial 
Council, which might include in an advisory capacity 
the "appointed members" of the Trade Board. 

21. It will be observed that the policy we recommend is 
based upon organisation on the part of both employers and 
employed. Where this is adequate, as in Group A. industries, 
there is no need of external assistance. In Group B. industries, 
we think that the organisations concerned would be glad to 
have the services of an official representative who would act as 
adviser and as a link with the Government. In unorganised 
sections of both groups of industries we believe that a larger 
measure of Government assistance will be both desirable and 
acceptable, and we have therefore suggested the adoption of 
the machinery of the Trade Boards Act in this connection. In 
Group C. industries we think that organisation will be en- 
couraged by the use of the powers under the Trade Boards 
Act, and where National Industrial Councils are set up we rec- 
ommend that the "appointed members" of the Trade Board 
should act on the Councils in an advisory capacity. Briefly, our 
proposals are that the extent of State assistance should vary 
inversely with the degree of organisation in industries. 

22. We do not, however, regard Government assistance as 
an alternative to the organisation of employers and employed. 
On the contrary, we regard it as a means of furthering the 
growth and development of such organisation. 

23. We think it advisable in this connection to repeat the 
following paragraph from our former Report: — 



434 APPENDIX VIII 

"It may be desirable to state here our considered opinion 
that an essential condition of securing a permanent improve- 
ment in the relations between employers and employed is that 
there should be adequate organisation on the part of both 
employers and workpeople. The proposals outlined for joint 
co-operation throughout the several industries depend for their 
ultimate success upon there being such organisation on both 
sides; and such organisation is necessary also to provide means 
whereby the arrangements and agreements made for the in- 
dustry may be effectively carried out." 

24. In considering the scope of the matters referred to us 
we have formed the opinion that the expression "employers and 
workmen" in our reference covers State and Municipal au- 
thorities and persons employed by them. Accordingly we 
recommend that such authorities and their workpeople should 
take into consideration the proposals made in this and in our 
first Report, with a view to determining how far such proposals 
can suitably be adopted in their case. 

We understand that the Ministry of Labour has up to the 
present circulated our first Report only to employers' and work- 
people's associations in the ordinary private industries. We 
think, however, that both it and the present Report should also 
be brought to the notice of State Departments and Municipal 
Authorities employing Labour. 

2%. The proposals we have set forth above do not require 
legislation except on three points, namely, to provide — 

(1) That the Trade Boards shall have power, in addition to 
determining minimum rates of wages, to deal with hours of 
labour and questions cognate to wages and hours. 

(2) That the Trade Boards shall have power to initiate en- 
quiries, and make proposals to the Government Departments 
concerned, on matters affecting the industrial conditions of the 
trade, as well as on questions of general interest to the in- 
dustries concerned respectively. 

(3) That when an Industrial Council sufficiently representa- 
tive of an industry makes application, the Minister of Labour 
shall have power, if satisfied that the case is a suitable one, to 
make an Order instituting for a section of the industry a Trade 
Board on which the Industrial Council shall be represented, or 
constituting the Council a Trade Board under the Trade 
Boards Acts. 

26. The proposals which we have made must necessarily be 



APPENDIX VIII 43$ 

adapted to meet the varying needs and circumstances of dif- 
ferent industries, and it is not anticipated that there will be 
uniformity in practice. Our recommendations are intended 
merely to set forth the main lines of development which we be- 
lieve to be essential to ensure better relations between em- 
ployers and employed. Their application to the several in- 
dustries we can safely leave to those intimately concerned, with 
the conviction that the flexibility and adaptability of industrial 
organisation which have been so large a factor in enabling in- 
dustry to stand the enormous strain of the war will not fail the 
country when peace returns. 

2j. Other problems affecting the relations between employers 
and employed are engaging our attention, but we believe that, 
whatever further steps may be necessary to accomplish the ob- 
ject we have in view, the lines of development suggested in 
the present Report and the one which preceded it are funda- 
mental. We believe that in each industry there is a sufficiently 
large body of opinion willing to adopt the proposals we have 
made as a means of establishing a new relation in industry. 

J. H. Whitley, Chairman, F. S. Button, S. J. Chapman, 
G. H. Claughton, J. R. Clynes, F. N. Hepworth, Wilfrid 
Hill, J. A. Hobson, A. Susan Lawrence, Maurice Levy, 
J. J. Mallon, Thos. R. Ratcliffe-Ellis, Allan M. Smith, 
D. R. H. Williams, Mona Wilson. 1 

H. J. Wilson, A. Greenwood, Secretaries. 

iSth October, 1917. 

1 Sir G. J. Carter and Mr. Smillie were unable to attend any of 
the meetings at which this Report was considered and they therefore 
do not sign it. 



APPENDIX IX 
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON WORKS COMMITTEES 

COMMITTEE ON RELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS- AND EMPLOYED J 
MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION 

To the Right Honourable D. Lloyd George, M. P., Prime 

Minister. 

Sir, In our first and second Reports we have referred to the 
establishment of Works Committees, 1 representative of the 
management and of the workpeople, and appointed from within 
the works, as an essential part of the scheme of organisation 
suggested to secure improved relations between employers and 
employed. The purpose of the present Report is to deal more 
fully with the proposal to institute such Committees. 

2. Better relations between employers and their workpeople 
can best be arrived at by granting to the latter a greater share in 
the consideration of matters with which they are concerned. 
In every industry there are certain questions, such as rates of 
wages and hours of work, which should be settled by District 
or National agreement, and with any matter so settled no 
Works Committee should be allowed to interfere; but there are 
also many questions closely affecting daily life and comfort in, 
and the success of, the business, and affecting in no small degree 
efficiency of working, which are peculiar to the individual work- 
shop or factory. The purpose of a Works Committee is to 
establish and maintain a system of co-operation in all these 
workshop matters. 

3. We have throughout our recommendations proceeded 
upon the assumption that the greatest success is likely to be 

*In the use of the term "Works Committees" in this Report 
it is not intended to use the word "works" in a technical sense; in 
such an industry as the Coal Trade, for example, the term "Pit 
Committees" would probably be the term used in adopting the 
scheme. 

436 



APPENDIX IX 437 

achieved by leaving to the representative bodies of employers 
and employed in each industry the maximum degree of free- 
dom to settle for themselves the precise form of Council or 
Committee which should be adopted, having regard in each case 
to the particular circumstances of the trade ; and, in accordance 
with this principle, we refrain from indicating any definite form 
of constitution for the Works Committees. Our proposals as 
a whole assume the existence of organisations of both em- 
ployers and employed and a frank and full recognition of such 
organisations. Works Committees established otherwise than 
in accordance with these principles could not be regarded 
as a part of the scheme we have recommended, and might indeed 
be a hindrance to the development of the new relations in in- 
dustry to which we look forward. We think the aim should be 
the complete and coherent organisation of the trade on both 
sides, and Works Committees will be of value in so far as 
they contribute to such a result. 

4. We are of opinion that the complete success of Works 
Committees necessarily depends largely upon the degree and 
efficiency of organisation in the trade, and upon the extent to 
which the Committees can be linked up, through organisations 
that we have in mind, with the remainder of the scheme which 
we are proposing, viz., the District and National Councils. We 
think it important to state that the success of the Works Com- 
mittees would be very seriously interfered with if the idea 
existed that such Committees were used, or likely to be used, 
by employers in opposition to Trade Unionism. It is strongly 
felt that the setting up of Works Committees without the co- 
operation of the Trade Unions and the Employers' Associations 
in the trade or branch of trade concerned would stand in the 
way of the improved industrial relationships which in these 
Reports we are endeavouring to further. 

5. In an industry where the workpeople are unorganised, 
or only very partially organised, there is a danger that Works 
Committees may be used, or thought to be used, in opposition 
to Trade Unionism. It is important that such fears should be 
guarded against in the initiation of any scheme. We look upon 
successful Works Committees as the broad base of the Industrial 
Structure which we have recommended, and as the means of 
enlisting the interest of the workers in the success both of the 
industry to which they are attached and of the workshop or 
factory where so much of their life is spent. These Com- 



438 APPENDIX IX 

mittees should not, in constitution or methods of working, dis- 
courage Trade organisations. 

6. Works Committees, in our opinion, should have regular 
meetings at fixed times, and, as a general rule, not less fre- 
quently than once a fortnight. They should always keep in 
the forefront the idea of constructive co-operation in the im- 
provement of the industry to which they belong. Suggestions 
of all kinds tending to improvement should be frankly welcomed 
and freely discussed. Practical proposals should be examined 
from all points of view. There is an undeveloped asset of 
constructive ability — valuable alike to the industry and to the 
State — awaiting the means of realisation; problems, old and 
new, will find their solution in a frank partnership of knowledge, 
experience and goodwill. Works Committees would fail in 
their main purpose if they existed only to smooth over griev- 
ances. 

7. We recognise that, from time to time, matters will arise 
which the management or the workmen consider to be questions 
they cannot discuss in these joint meetings. When this occurs, 
we anticipate that nothing but good will come from the friendly 
statement of the reasons why the reservation is made. 

8. We regard the successful development and utilisation of 
Works Committees in any business on the basis recommended 
in this Report as of equal importance with its commercial and 
scientific efficiency; and we think that in every case one of 
the partners or directors, or some other responsible representa- 
tive of the management, would be well advised to devote a 
substantial part of his time and thought to the good working 
and development of such a committee. 

9. There has been some experience, both before the war and 
during the war, of the benefits of Works Committees, and we 
think it should be recommended most strongly to employers 
and employed that, in connection with the scheme for the 
establishment of National and District Industrial Councils, 
they should examine this experience with a view to the insti- 
tution of Works Committees on proper lines, in works where 
the conditions render their formation practicable. We have 
recommended that the Ministry of Labour should prepare a 
summary of the experience available with reference to Works 
Committees, both before and during the war, including informa- 
tion as to any rules or reports relating to such Committees, 
and should issue a memorandum thereon for the guidance of 



APPENDIX IX 439 

employers and workpeople generally, and we understand that 
such a memorandum is now in course of preparation. 1 

10. In order to ensure uniform and common principles of 
action, it is essential that where National and District In- 
dustrial Councils exist the Works Committees should be in close 
touch with them, and the scheme for linking up Works Com- 
mittees with the Councils should be considered and determined 
by the National Councils. 

ii. We have considered it better not to attempt to indicate 
any specific form of Works Committees. Industrial establish- 
ments show such infinite variation in size, number of persons 
employed, multiplicity of departments, and other conditions, that 
the particular form of Works Committees must necessarily be 
adapted to the circumstances of each case. It would, therefore, 
be impossible to formulate any satisfactory scheme which does 
not provide a large measure of elasticity. 

We are confident that the nature of the particular organisa- 
tion necessary for the various cases will be settled without 
difficulty by the exercise of goodwill on both sides. 

J. H. Whitley, Chairman, F. S. Button, S. J. Chapman, 
G. H. Claughton, J. R. Clynes, F. N. Hepworth, Wilfrid 
Hill, J. A. Hobson, A. Susan Lawrence, Maurice Levy, 
J. J. Mallon, Thos. R. Ratcliffe-Ellis, Allan M. Smith, 
D. R. H. Williams, Mona Wilson. 2 

H. J. Wilson, A. Greenwood, Secretaries. 

i&th October, 1917. 

^his Memorandum is now completed and will be published 
by the Ministry of Labour. 

2 Sir G. J. Carter and Mr. Smillie were unable to attend any 
of the meetings at which this Report was considered and they 
therefore do not sign it. Sir G. J. Carter has intimated that 
in his view, in accordance with the principles indicated in 
paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Report, it is important that Works 
Committees should not deal with matters which ought to be 
directly dealt with by the firms concerned or their respective 
Associations in conjunction with the recognised representatives 
of the Trade Unions whose members are affected. 



APPENDIX X 
INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS AND TRADE BOARDS 

MEMORANDUM BY THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION AND THE 
MINISTER OF LABOUR 

i. The proposals contained in the First Report on Joint 
Standing Industrial Councils (Cd. 8606) of the Committee on 
Relations between Employers and Employed have been adopted 
by the Government. The steps which have been taken to es- 
tablish Industrial Councils have enabled the Government to con- 
sider the proposals of the Second Report on Joint Standing 
Industrial Councils (Cd. 9002) in the light of experience. This 
Report, which deals with industries other than those which are 
highly organised, follows naturally upon the First Report of the 
Committee, and develops the line of policy therein proposed. It 
has not been found possible from the administrative point of 
view to adopt the whole of the recommendations contained in the 
Second Report, but such modifications as it seems desirable to 
make do not affect the principles underlying the Committee's pro- 
posal for the establishment of Joint Industrial Councils. They 
are designed to take advantage of the administrative experience 
of the Ministry of Labour with regard to both Industrial Coun- 
cils and Trade Boards. In view of the growing interest which 
is being taken in the establishment of Industrial Councils and 
of the proposed extension of Trade Boards, it appears desirable 
to set forth the modifications which the Government regard as 
necessary in putting into operation the recommendations of 
the Second Report, and also to make clear the relations be- 
tween Trade Boards and Industrial Councils. 

2. The First Report on Joint Standing Industrial Councils 
referred only to the well-organised industries. The Second 
Report deals with the less organised and unorganised trades, 
and suggests the classification of the industries of the country 
into three groups: — 

440 



APPENDIX X 44i 

"Group A. — Consisting of industries in which organisation on 
the part of employers and employed is sufficiently developed 
to render their respective associations representative of the 
great majority of those engaged in the industry. These are the 
industries which we had in mind in our first Interim Report. 

"Group B. — Comprising those industries in which, either as 
regards employers and employed, or both, the degree of 
organisation, though considerable, is less marked than in Group 
A. 

"Group C. — Consisting of industries in which organisation is 
so imperfect, either as regards employers or employed, or 
both, that no associations can be said adequately to represent 
those engaged in the industry." 

The proposals of the Committee on Relations between Em- 
ployers and Employed are summarised in paragraph 20 of their 
Second Report as follows: — 

"(a) In the more highly organised industries (Group A.) we 
proposed a triple organisation of national, district, and work- 
shop bodies, as outlined in our First Report. 

"(b) In industries where there are representative associa- 
tions of employers and employed, which, however, do not pos- 
sess the authority of those in Group A. industries, we propose 
that the triple organisation should be modified, by attaching to 
each National Industrial Council one, or at most two representa- 
tives of the Ministry of Labour to act in an advisory capacity. 

"(c) In industries in both Groups A. and B., we propose that 
unorganised areas or branches of an industry should be pro- 
vided, on the application of the National Industrial Council, and 
with the approval of the Ministry of Labour, with Trade Boards 
for such areas or branches, the Trade Boards being linked with 
the Industrial Council. 

"(d) In industries having no adequate organisation of em- 
ployers or employed, we recommend that Trade Boards should 
be continued or established, and that these should, with the 
approval of the Ministry of Labour, be enabled to formulate a 
scheme for an Industrial Council, which might include, in an 
advisory capacity, the 'appointed members' of the Trade Board." 

It may be convenient to set out briefly the modifications of 
the above proposals, which it has been found necessary to make. 

(1) As regards (b) it has been decided to recognise one 
type of Industrial Council only, and not to attach official repre- 



442 APPENDIX X 

sentatives to the Council, except on the application of the In- 
dustrial Council itself. 

(2) As regards (c) and (d) the relations between Trade 
Boards and Industrial Councils raise a number of serious ad- 
ministrative difficulties due to the wide differences in the pur- 
pose and structure of the two types of bodies. It is not re- 
garded as advisable that a Trade Board should formulate a 
scheme for an Industrial Council, nor is it probable that Trade 
Boards for unorganised areas will be set up in conjunction with 
a Joint Industrial Council. 

3. It is necessary at the outset to emphasise the fundamental 
differences between Industrial Councils and Trade Boards. A 
Joint Industrial Council is voluntary in its character and can 
only be brought into existence with the agreement of the 
organisations of employers and workpeople in the particular in- 
dustry, and the Council itself is composed exclusively of per- 
sons nominated by the Employers' Associations and Trade 
Unions concerned. The Industrial Council is, moreover, within 
very wide limits, able to determine its own functions, machinery 
and methods of working. Its functions in almost all cases will 
probably cover a wide range and will be concerned with many 
matters other than wages. Its machinery and methods will be 
based upon past experience of the industry and the existing 
organisation of both employers and employed. Industrial Coun- 
cils will, therefore, vary in structure and functions as can 
be seen from the provisional constitutions already submitted 
to the Ministry of Labour. Financially they will be self-sup- 
porting, and will receive no monetary aid from the Government. 
The Government proposes to recognise the Industrial Council 
in an industry as the representative organisation to which it 
can refer. This was made clear in the Minister of Labour's cir- 
cular letter of October 20th, 191 7, in which it is said that "the 
Government desire it to be understood that the Councils will 
be recognised as the official standing consultative committees 
to the Government on all future questions affecting the in- 
dustries which they represent, and that they will be the nor- 
mal channel through which the opinion and experience of an 
industry will be sought on all questions in which the industry 
is concerned." 

A Trade Board, on the other hand, is a statutory body es- 
tablished by the Minister of Labour and constituted in accord- 
ance with Regulations made by him in pursuance of the Trade 



APPENDIX X 443 

Boards Act; and its expenses, in so far as authorised by the 
Minister of Labour and sanctioned by the Treasury, are defrayed 
out of public money. The Regulations may provide for the 
election of the representatives of employers and workers or 
for their nomination by the Minister of Labour, but in either 
case provision must be made for the representation of home- 
workers in trades in which a considerable proportion of home- 
workers are engaged. On account of the comparative lack of 
organisation in the trades to which the Act at present applies, 
the method of nomination by the Minister has proved in prac- 
tice to be preferable to that of election, and in nearly all cases 
the representative members of Trade Boards are now nominated 
by the Minister. The Employers' Associations and Trade 
Unions in the several trades are invited to submit the names 
of candidates for the Minister's consideration, and full weight 
is attached to their recommendation, but where the trade 
organisations do not fully represent all sections of the trade, 
it is necessary to look outside them to find representatives of 
the different processes and districts affected. 

A further distinction between Trade Boards and Industrial 
Councils is, that while Industrial Councils are composed en- 
tirely of representatives of the Employers' Associations and 
Trade Unions in the industry, every Trade Board includes, in 
addition to the representative members, a small number (usually 
three) of "appointed members," one of whom is appointed by 
the Minister to act as Chairman and one as Deputy Chairman 
of the Board. The appointed members are unconnected with 
the trade and are appointed by the Minister as impartial per- 
sons. The primary function of a Trade Board is the determina- 
tion of minimum rates of wages, and when the minimum rates 
of wages fixed by a Trade Board have been confirmed by the 
Minister of Labour, they are enforceable by criminal proceed- 
ings, and officers are appointed to secure their observance. The 
minimum rates thus become part of the law of the land, and are 
enforced in the same manner as, for example, the provisions 
of the Factory Acts. The purpose, structure, and functions 
of Industrial Councils and Trade Boards are therefore funda- 
mentally different. Their respective areas of operation are also 
determined by different considerations. An Industrial Council 
will exercise direct influence only over the organisations repre- 
sented upon it. It will comprise those employers' associations 
with common interests and common problems ; similarly its trade 



444 APPENDIX X 

union side will be composed of representatives of organisations 
whose interests are directly interdependent. An Industrial 
Council therefore is representative of organisations whose ob- 
jects and interests, whilst not identical, are sufficiently inter- 
locked to render common action desirable. The various 
organisations represent the interests of employers and workers 
engaged in the production of a particular commodity or serv- 
ice (or an allied group of commodities or services). 

A Trade Board, on the other hand, is not based on existing 
organisations of employers and employed, but covers the whole 
of the trade for which it is established. As the minimum rates 
are enforceable by law, it is necessary that the boundaries of 
the trade should be precisely defined; this is done, within the 
limits prescribed by statute, by the Regulations made by the 
Minister of Labour. Natural divisions of industry are, of 
course, followed as far as possible, but in many cases the line 
of demarcation must necessarily be somewhat arbitrary. In 
the case of Industrial Councils difficult demarcation problems 
also arise, but the considerations involved are somewhat dif- 
ferent, as the object is to determine whether the interests rep- 
resented by given organisations are sufficiently allied to justify 
the co-operation of these organisations in one Industrial Coun- 
cil. 

4. The reports received from those who are engaged in as- 
sisting the formation of Joint Industrial Councils show that 
certain paragraphs in the Second Report of the Committee on 
Relations between Employers and Employed have caused some 
confusion as to the character and scope of Joint Industrial 
Councils and Trade Boards respectively. It is essential to the 
future development of Joint Industrial Councils that their dis- 
tinctive aim and character should be maintained. It is neces- 
sary therefore to keep clearly in mind the respective functions 
of the Joint Industrial Council and the Trade Board, in con- 
sidering the recommendations contained in the following para- 
graphs of the Second Report : — 

(a) Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, dealing with the division of Joint 
Industrial Councils into those that cover Group A. industries, 
and those that cover Group B. industries. 

(&) Paragraph 7, dealing with district Industrial Councils in 
industries where no National Council exists. 

(c) Paragraphs 10, 13, 15 and 16, dealing with Trade Boards 
in relation to Joint Industrial Councils. 



APPENDIX X 445 

(d) Paragraphs II and 12, dealing with Trade Boards in 
industries which are not suitably organised for the establishment 
of a Joint Industrial Council. 

5. Distinction drazun betzueen Joint Industrial Councils in 
Group A. Industries and Group B. Industries. — In paragraph 9 
of the Second Report it is implied that the Ministry of Labour 
would determine whether the standard of organisation in any 
given industry has reached such a stage as to justify the of- 
ficial recognition of a Joint Industrial Council in that industry. 
It is clear, however, that it would be impossible for the Ministry 
to discover any satisfactory basis for distinguishing between 
an industry which falls into Group A., and one which falls into 
Group B. It is admitted in paragraph 9 of the Second Report, 
that no arbitrary standard of organisation could be adopted, 
and it would be both invidious and impracticable for the Ministry 
of Labour, upon whom the responsibility would fall, to draw a 
distinction between A. and B. Industries. The only clear dis- 
tinction is between industries which are sufficiently organised 
to justify the formation of a Joint Industrial Council, and 
those which are not sufficiently organised. Individual cases 
must be judged on their merits after a consideration of the 
scope and effectiveness of the organisation, the complexity of 
the industry and the wishes of those concerned. 

The experience already gained in connection with Joint In- 
dustrial Councils indicates that it would be inadvisable in the 
case of industries in Group B. to adopt the proposal that "there 
should be appointed one or at most two official representa- 
tives to assist in the initiation of the Council and continue 
after its establishment to act in an advisory capacity and serve 
as a link with the Government." It is fundamental to the idea 
of a Joint Industrial Council that it is a voluntary body set up 
by the industry itself, acting as an independent body and en- 
tirely free from all State control. Whilst the Minister of 
Labour would be willing to give every assistance to Industrial 
Councils, he would prefer that any suggestion of this kind should 
come from the industry, rather than from the Ministry. 

The main idea of the Joint Industrial Council as a Joint Body 
representative of an industry and independent of State control 
has now become familiar, and the introduction of a second 
type of Joint Industrial Council for B. industries would be 
likely to cause confusion and possibly to prejudice the future 
growth of Joint Industrial Councils. 



446 APPENDIX X 

In view of these circumstances, therefore, it has been de- 
cided to adopt a single type of Industrial Council. 

6. District Industrial Councils. — Paragraph 7 of the Second 
Report suggests that in certain industries in which a National 
Industrial Council is not likely to be formed, in the immediate 
future, it might none the less be possible to form one or more 
"District" Industrial Councils. 

In certain cases the formation of joint bodies covering a 
limited area is probable. It would, however, avoid confusion if 
the term "District" were not part of the title of such Coun- 
cils, and if the use of it were confined to District Councils in 
an industry where a National Council exists. Independent local 
Councils might well have a territorial designation instead. 

7. Trade Boards in Relation to Joint Industrial Councils. — 
The distinction between Trade Boards and Joint Industrial 
Councils has been set forth in paragraph 3 above. The ques- 
tion whether an Industrial Council should be formed for a 
given industry depends on the degree of organisation achieved 
by the employers and workers in the industry, whereas the 
question whether a Trade Board should be established de- 
pends primarily on the rates of wages prevailing in the in- 
dustry or in any part of the industry. This distinction makes 
it clear that the question whether a Trade Board should or 
should not be set up by the Minister of Labour for a given in- 
dustry, must be decided apart from the question whether a Joint 
Industrial Council should or should not be recognised in that in- 
dustry by the Minister of Labour. 

It follows from this that it is possible that both a Joint In- 
dustrial Council and a Trade Board may be necessary within 
the same industry. 

In highly organised industries, the rates of wages prevailing 
will not, as a rule, be so low as to necessitate the establishment 
of a Trade Board. In some cases, however, a well-defined sec- 
tion of an otherwise well-organised industry or group of in- 
dustries may be unorganised and ill-paid; in such a case it 
would clearly be desirable for a Trade Board to be established 
for the ill-paid section, while there should at the same time be 
an Industrial Council for the remaining sections, or even for the 
whole, of the industry or industrial group. 

In the ease of other industries sufficiently organised to justify 
the establishment of an Industrial Council, the organisations 
represented on the Council may nevertheless not be compre- 



APPENDIX X 447 

hensive enough to regulate wages effectively throughout the 
industry. In such cases a Trade Board for the whole industry 
may possibly be needed. 

Where a Trade Board covers either the whole or part of 
an industry covered by a Joint Industrial Council, the relations 
between them may, in order to avoid any confusion or misun- 
derstanding, be defined as follows: — 

(i) Where Government Departments wish to consult the in- 
dustry, the Joint Industrial Council, and not the Trade Board, 
will be recognised as the body to be consulted. 

(2) In order to make use of the experience of the Trade 
Board, the constitution of the Industrial Council should be so 
drawn as to make full provision for consultation between the 
Council and the Trade Board on matters referred to the former 
by a Government Department, and to allow of the representa- 
tion of the Trade Board on any Sub-Committee of the Council 
dealing with questions with which the Trade Board is con- 
cerned. 

(3) The Joint Industrial Council clearly cannot under any 
circumstances over-ride the statutory powers conferred upon 
the Trade Board, and if the Government at any future time 
adopted the suggestion contained in Section 21 of the First 
Report that the sanction of law should be given on the appli- 
cation of an Industrial Council to agreements made by the 
Council, such agreements could not be made binding on any 
part of a trade governed by a Trade Board, so far as the 
statutory powers of the Trade Board are concerned. 

The Minister of Labour will not ordinarily set up a Trade 
Board to deal with an industry or branch of an industry, in 
which the majority of employers and workpeople are covered 
by wage agreements, but in which a minority, possibly in certain 
areas, are outside the agreement. It would appear that the pro- 
posal in Section 21 of the First Report was specially designed 
to meet such cases. Experience has shown that there are 
great difficulties in the way of establishing a Trade Board for 
one area only in which an industry is carried on, without cover- 
ing the whole of a Trade, though the Trade Boards Act allows 
of this procedure. 

8. Trade Boards in industries which are not sufficiently 
organised for the establishment of a Joint Industrial Council. — 
Section 3 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, provides that "a 
Trade Board for any trade shall consider, as occasion requires, 



448 APPENDIX X 

any matter referred to them by a Secretary of State, the Board 
of Trade, or any other Government Department, with refer- 
ence to the industrial conditions of the trade, and shall make 
a report upon the matter to the department by whom the ques- 
tion has been referred." 

In the case of an industry in which a Trade Board has been 
established, but an Industrial Council has not been formed, the 
Trade Board is the only body that can claim to be representa- 
tive of the industry as a whole. 

It is already under a statutory obligation to consider questions 
referred to it by a Government Department; and where there 
is a Trade Board but no Industrial Council in an industry it 
will be suggested to Government Departments that they should 
consult the Trade Board as occasion requires in the same man- 
ner as they would consult Industrial Councils. 

On the other hand, for the reasons which have been fully set 
out above, Industrial Councils must be kept distinct from Trade 
Boards, and the latter, owing to their constitution, cannot be 
converted into the former. If an industry in which a Trade 
Board is established becomes sufficiently organised for the for- 
mation of an Industrial Council, the Council would have to be 
formed on quite different lines from the Trade Board, and the 
initiative should come, not from the Trade Board, which is a 
body mainly nominated by the Minister of Labour, but from the 
organisations in the industry. Hence it would not be desirable 
that Trade Boards should undertake the formation of schemes 
for Industrial Councils. 

Ministry of Reconstruction. 



APPENDIX XI 
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE POTTERY INDUSTRY 

OBJECTS 

The advancement of the Pottery Industry and of all con- 
nected with it by the association in its government of all en- 
gaged in the industry. 

It will be open to the Council to take any action that falls 
within the scope of its general object. Its chief work will, 
however, fall under the following heads: — 

(a) The consideration of means whereby all Manufacturers 
and Operatives shall be brought within their respective asso- 
ciations. 

(b) Regular consideration of wages, piecework prices, and 
conditions with a view to establishing and maintaining equitable 
conditions throughout the industry. 

(c) To assist the respective Associations in the maintenance 
of such selling prices as will afford a reasonable remuneration 
to both employers and employed. 

(d) The consideration and settlement of all disputes be- 
tween different parties in the industry which it may not have 
been possible to settle by the existing machinery, and the 
establishment of machinery for dealing with disputes where 
adequate machinery does not exist. 

(e) The regularisation of production and employment as 
a means of insuring to the workpeople the greatest possible 
security of earnings. 

(f) Improvement in conditions with a view to removing all 
danger to health in the industry. 

(g) The study of processes, the encouragement of research, 
and the full utilisation of their results. 

(h) The provision of facilities for the full consideration 
and the utilisation of inventions and improvements designed by 

449 



450 APPENDIX XI 

workpeople and for the adequate safeguarding of the rights 
of the designers of such improvements. 

(i) Education in all its branches for the industry. 

(j) The collection of full statistics on wages, making and 
selling prices, and average percentages of profits on turnover, 
and on materials, markets, costs, etc., and the study and pro- 
motion of scientific and practical systems of costing to this 
end. 

All statistics shall, where necessary, be verified by Chartered 
Accountants, who shall make a statutory declaration as to 
secrecy prior to any investigation, and no particulars of in- 
dividual firms or operatives shall be disclosed to any one. 

(k) Enquiries into problems of the industry, and where 
desirable, the publication of reports. 

(1) Representation of the needs and opinions of the industry 
to Government authorities, central and local, and to the com- 
munity generally. 

CONSTITUTION 

(i) Membership. The Council shall consist of an equal 
number of representatives of the Manufacturers and the Opera- 
tives ; the Manufacturers' representatives to be appointed by the 
Manufacturers' Associations in proportions to be agreed on 
between them; the Operatives' representatives by the Trade 
Unions in proportions to be agreed on between them. The 
number of representatives on each side shall not exceed 30. 
Among the Manufacturers' representatives may be included 
salaried managers, and among the Operatives' representatives 
some women operatives. 

(2) Honorary Members. The Council to have the power 
to co-opt Honorary Members with the right to attend meetings 
or serve on committees of the Council, and to speak but not 
to vote. 

(3) Re-appointment One-third of the representatives of the 
said Associations and Unions shall retire annually, and shall be 
eligible for re-appointment. 

(4) Officers. The Officers of the council shall be: — 

(a) A Chairman and Vice-Chairman. When the Chair- 
man is a member of the Operatives, the Vice-Chairman shall 
be a member of the Manufacturers, and vice-versa. The 
Chairman (or, in his absence, the Vice-Chairman) shall pre- 
side at all meetings, and shall have a vote, but not a casting 



APPENDIX XI 451 

vote. It shall always be open to the Council to appoint an 
Independent Chairman, temporary or otherwise. 

(b) Such Secretaries and Treasurers as the Council may 
require. 

All Honorary Officers shall be elected by the Council at its 
annual meeting for a term of one year, and, subject to the 
condition that a Chairman or Vice-Chairman from the said 
Associations shall be succeeded by a member of the said Unions, 
shall be eligible for re-election. The Council may from time 
to time fix the remuneration to be paid to its Officers. 

(5) Committees. The Council shall appoint an Executive 
Committee, and Standing Committees, representative of the 
different needs of the industry. It shall have power to appoint 
other Committees for special purposes, and to co-opt such per- 
sons of special knowledge, not being members of the Council, 
as may serve the special purposes of these committees. On 
all Committees both Manufacturers and Operatives shall be 
equally represented. The minutes of all Committees shall be 
submitted to the National Council for confirmation. 

Each Committee shall appoint its own Chairman and Vice- 
Chairman, except in the case of the Finance Committee, over 
which Committee the Chairman of the National Council shall 
preside. 

(6) Finance. The ordinary expenses of the Council shall be 
met by a levy upon the Manufacturers' Associations and the 
Trade Unions represented. Special expenditures shall be pro- 
vided for by the Finance Committee. 

(7) Meetings. The ordinary meetings of the Council shall 
be held quarterly. The annual meeting shall be held in January. 
A special meeting of the Council shall be held on the requisition 
of ten members of the Council. Seven days' notice of any 
meeting shall be given. Twenty members shall form a quorum. 
Committees shall meet as often as may be required. 

(8) Voting. The voting upon all questions shall be by show 
of hands, and two-thirds majority of those present and voting 
shall be required to carry a resolution. Provided that, when 
at any meeting the representatives of the unions and the asso- 
ciations respectively, are unequal in numbers, all members pres- 
ent shall have the right to enter fully into discussion of any 
matters, but only an equal number of each of such representa- 
tives (to be decided amongst them) shall vote. 



APPENDIX XII 

WORKSHOP COMMITTEES 

SUGGESTED LINES OF DEVELOPMENT 

By C. G. Renold 

(From the Survey, Oct. 6, 191 8, which reprinted the pam- 
phlet under cabled permission of the author.) 

PREFACE 

Some time ago I was asked to prepare a memorandum on 
the subject of Workshop Committees, for presentation to the 
British Association, as a part of the report of a special sub- 
committee studying industrial unrest. The following pages con- 
tain the gist of that memorandum, and are now issued in this 
form for the benefit of some of those interested in the problem 
who may not see the original report. 

I have approached the subject with the conviction that the 
worker's desire for more scope in his working life can best 
be satisfied by giving him some share in the directing of it; 
if not of the work itself, at least of the conditions under which 
it is carried out. I have tried, therefore, to work out in some 
detail the part which organisations of workers might play in 
works administration. And believing as I do, that the exist- 
ing industrial system, with all its faults and injustices, must 
still form the basis of any future system, I am concerned to 
show that a considerable development of joint action between 
management and workers is possible, even under present con- 
ditions. 

Many of the ideas put forward are already incorporated to a 
greater or lesser degree in the institution of these works, but 
these notes are not intended, primarily, as an account of our 
experiments, still less as a forecast of the future plans of 

452 



APPENDIX XII 453 

this firm. Our own experience and hopes do, however, form 
the basis of much here written, and have inevitably influenced 
the general line of thought followed. 

Burnage Works, September, 1917. 

C. G. Renold, Hans Renold Limited, Manchester. 

INTRODUCTION 

Throughout the following notes it is assumed that the need 
is realised for a new orientation of ideas with regard to indus- 
trial management. It is further assumed that the trend of 
such ideas must be in the direction of a devolution of some 
of the functions and responsibilities of management on to the 
workers themselves. These notes, therefore, are concerned 
mainly with considering how far this devolution can be carried 
under present conditions, and the necessary machinery for en- 
abling it to operate. 

Before passing, however, to detailed schemes, it is worth 
considering briefly what the aims of this devolution are. 

It must be admitted that the conditions of industrial life 
fail to satisfy the deeper needs of the workers, and that it 
is this failure, even more than low wages, which is responsible 
for much of their general unrest. Now the satisfaction to be 
derived from work depends upon its being a means of self- 
expression. This again depends on the power of control exer- 
cised by the individual over the materials and processes used, 
and the conditions under which the work is carried out, or 
in the case of complicated operations, where the individual 
can hardly be other than a "cog in the machine," — on the 
willingness, understanding, and imagination with which he 
undertakes such a role. In the past the movement in industry, 
in this respect, has been all in the wrong direction, namely, a 
continual reduction of freedom, initiative, and interest, in- 
volving an accentuation of the "cog-in-the-machine" status. 
Moreover, it has too often produced a "cog" blind and un- 
willing, with no perspective or understanding of the part it 
plays in the general mechanism of production, or even in any 
one particular series of operations. 

Each successive step in the splitting up and specialising of 
operations has been taken with a view to promoting efficiency 
of production, and there can be no doubt that efficiency, in a 
material sense, has been achieved thereby, and the productivity 



454 APPENDIX XII 

of industry greatly increased. This has been done, however, 
at the cost of pleasure and interest in work, and the problem 
now is how far these could be restored, as, for instance, by 
some devolution of management responsibility on to the work- 
ers, and how far such devolution is possible under the competi- 
tive capitalist system, which is likely to dominate industry for 
many long years to come. 

Under the conditions of capitalist industry any scheme of 
devolution of management can only stand provided it in- 
volves no net loss of productive efficiency. It is believed, 
however, that even within these limits, considerable progress 
in this direction is possible, doubtless involving some detail 
loss, but with more than compensating gains in general effi- 
ciency. In this connection it must be remembered that the 
work of very many men, probably of most, is given more or 
less unwillingly, and even should the introduction of more 
democratic methods of business management entail a certain 
amount of loss of mechanical efficiency, due to the greater 
cumbersomeness of democratic proceedings, if it can succeed in 
obtaining more willing work and co-operation, the net gain in 
productivity would be enormous. 

Important and urgent as is this problem of rearranging the 
machinery of management to enable responsibility and power 
to be shared with the workers, another and preliminary step 
is even more pressing. This is the establishing of touch and 
understanding between employer and employed, between man- 
agement and worker. Quite apart from the many real griev- 
ances under which workers in various trades are suffering at 
the present time, there is a vast amount of bad feeling, due to 
misunderstanding, on the part of each side, of the aims and mo- 
tives of the other. Each party, believing the other to be al- 
ways ready to play foul, finds in every move easy evidence to 
support its bitterest suspicions. The workers are irritated be- 
yond measure by the inefficiency and blundering in organisation 
and management which they detect on every side, and know- 
ing nothing of business management cannot understand or 
make allowance for the enormous difficulties under which em- 
ployers labour at the present time. Similarly, employers are 
too ignorant of trade union affairs to appreciate the problems 
which the present "lightning transformation" of industry pre- 
sents to those responsible for shaping trade union policy; nor 
is the employer generally in close enough human touch to realise 



APPENDIX XII 455 

the effect of the long strain of war work, and of the harassing 
restrictions of personal liberty. 

More important therefore than any reconstruction of man- 
agement machinery, more important even than the remedying 
of specific grievances, is the establishing of some degree of 
ordinary human touch and sympathy between management 
and men. 

This also has an important bearing on any discussion with 
regard to developing machinery for joint action. It cannot 
be emphasized too strongly that the hopefulness of any such 
attempt lies, not in the perfection of the machinery, nor even 
in the wideness of the powers of self-government granted to 
the workers, but in the degree to which touch and, if possible, 
friendliness can be established. It should be realised, for in- 
stance, by employers, that time spent on discussing and ven- 
tilating alleged grievances which turn out to be no grievances, 
may be quite as productive of understanding and good feeling 
as the removal of real grievances. 

Passing now to constructive proposals for devolution of man- 
agement, the subject is here dealt with mainly in two stages. 

Under Section I, some of the functions of management 
which most concern the workers are considered, with a view 
to seeing how far the autocratic (or bureaucratic) secrecy and 
exclusiveness which usually surround business management, 
as far as workers are concerned, is really unavoidable, or how 
far it could be replaced by democratic discussion and joint 
action. The conclusion is that there is no reason inherent in 
the nature of the questions themselves why this cannot be done 
to a very considerable extent. 

Section II deals with the second stage referred to, and 
considers the machinery needed to make such joint action, as 
is suggested in Section I, workable — a very different matter 
from admitting that in itself it is not impossible ! The ap- 
parent complication of such machinery is doubtless a difficulty, 
but it is not insuperable, and is in practice less formidable 
than it seems at first sight. It must be realised, however, that 
the degree of elaboration of the machinery for joint working, 
adopted by any particular industry or firm, must be in relation 
to the elaboration of the existing management system. It would 
be quite impossible for many of the refinements of discussion 
and joint action suggested to be adopted by a firm whose or- 
dinary business organisation was crude, undeveloped, and un- 



456 APPENDIX XII 

systematic. This point is more fully dealt with in this section. 

Section III contains a summary of the scheme of Commit- 
tees contained in Section II, showing the distribution to each 
committee of the various questions discussed in Section I. 

In Section IV some comments are made, based on actual ex- 
perience of an attempt to institute machinery of the kind dis- 
cussed, and some practical hints are given which may be of 
assistance to others. 

I. SCOPE OF WORKERS' SHOP ORGANISATIONS; MANAGEMENT 

QUESTIONS WHICH COULD BE DEVOLVED, WHOLLY 

OR IN PART 

It is proposed in this section to consider the activities which 
organisations of workers within the workshop might under- 
take without any radical reorganisation of industry. What 
functions and powers, usually exercised by the management, 
could be devolved on to the workers, and what questions, usually 
considered private by the management, could be made the sub- 
ject of explanation and consultation? The number of such ques- 
tions as set out in this section may appear very formidable, and 
is possibly too great to be dealt with, except by a very gradual 
process. No thought is given at this stage, however, to the 
machinery which would be necessary for achieving so much 
joint working, the subject being considered rather with a view 
to seeing how far, and in what directions, the inherent nature 
of the questions themselves would make it possible or advisable 
to break down the censorship and secrecy which surround busi- 
ness management. 

In the list which follows, obviously not all questions are of 
equal urgency, those being most important which provide 
means of consultation and conciliation in regard to such mat- 
ters as most frequently give tise to disputes, namely, wage 
and piece-rate questions, and to a lesser degree, workshop prac- 
tices and customs. Any scheme of joint working should begin 
with these matters, the others beinf taken over as the machinery 
settles down and it is found practicable to do so. How far any 
particular business can go will depend on the circumstances 
of the trade, and on the type of organisation in operation. 

Though machinery for conciliation in connection with ex- 
isting troubles, such as those mentioned, must be the first care, 
some of the other matters suggested in this section — e.g., safety 



APPENDIX XII 457 

and hygiene, shop amenities, etc. — should be dealt with at the 
earliest possible moment. Such subjects, being less contro- 
versial, offer an easier means of approach for establishing touch 
and understanding between managers and men. 

The suggestions in this section are divided into two main 
groups, but this division is rather a matter of convenience than 
an indication of any vital difference in nature. The sugges- 
tions are arranged in order of urgency, those coming first 
where the case for establishing a workers' shop organisation 
is so clear as to amount to a right, and passing gradually to 
those where the case is more and more questionable. The 
first group, therefore, contains all those items where the case 
is clearest and in connection with which the immediate bene- 
fits would fall to the workers. The second group contains the 
more questionable items, which lie beyond the region where 
the shoe actually pinches the worker. These questions are 
largely educational, and the immediate benefit of action, con- 
sidered as a business proposition, would accrue to the manage- 
ment through the greater understanding of management and 
business difficulties on the part of the workers. 

i. Questions in Connection with Which Shop Organisations 
Would Primarily Benefit the Workers 

This group deals with those matters where the case for es- 
tablishing shop organisations, to meet the need of the workers, 
is clearest. 

(a) Collective Bargaining: There is a need for machinery 
for carrying this function of the trade union into greater and 
more intimate workshop detail than is possible by any outside 
body. A workshop organisation might supplement the ordinary 
trade union activities in the following directions: — 

(i.) Wages (Note. — General standard rates would be fixed 
by negotiation with the trade union for an entire district, not 
by committees of workers in individual works). 

To ensure the application of standard rates to individuals, to 
see that they get the benefit of the trade union agreements. 

When a scale of wages, instead of a single rate, applies to a 
class of work (the exact figure varying according to the ex- 
perience, length of service, etc., of the worker) to see that such 
scales are applied fairly. 



458 APPENDIX XII 

To see that promises of advances (such as those made, for in- 
stance, at the time of engagement) are fulfilled. 

To see that apprentices, on completing their time, are raised 
to the standard rate by the customary or agreed steps. 

(2.) Piece Work Rates: (It is assumed that the general 
method of rate fixing — e. g., the adoption of time study or 
other method — would be settled with the local trade unions.) 

To discuss with the management the detailed methods of rate 
fixing, as applied either to individual jobs or to particular classes 
of work. 

Where there is an agreed relation between time rates and 
piece rates as, for instance, in engineering, to see that indi- 
vidual piece rates are so set as to yield the standard rate of 
earning. 

To discuss with the management reduction of piece rates 
where these can be shown to yield higher earnings than the 
standard. 

To investigate on behalf of the workers complaints as to in- 
ability to earn the standard rate. For this purpose all the data 
and calculations, both with regard to the original setting of the 
rate and with regard to time booking on a particular job, would 
have to be open for examination. 

Note. — It is doubtful whether a shop committee, on account of 
its cumbersomeness, could ever handle detail, individual rates, 
except where the jobs dealt with are so large or so standardised 
as to make the number of rates to be set per week quite small. 
A better plan would be for a representative of the workers, 
preferably paid by them, to be attached to the rate-fixing 
department of a works, to check all calculations, and to look 
after the workers' interests generally. He would report to a 
shop committee, whose discussions with the management would 
then be limited to questions of principle. 

(3.) Watching the Application of Special Legislation, 
Awards, or Agreements — e. g. : Munitions of war act, dilution, 
leaving certificates, etc. ; Recruiting, exemptions ; After-war ar- 
rangements, demobilisation of war industries, restoration of 
trade union conditions, etc. 

(4.) Total Hours of Work: To discuss any proposed change 
in the length of the standard week. This could only be done by 
the workers' committee of an individual firm, provided the 
change were within the standards fixed by agreement with the 
local union or those customary in the trade. 



APPENDIX XII 459 

(5.) New Processes or Change of Process : Where the man- 
agement desire to introduce some process which will throw men 
out of employment, the whole position should be placed before 
a shop committee to let the necessity be understood, and to al- 
low it to discuss how the change may be brought about with the 
least hardship to individuals. 

(6.) Grades of Worker for Types of Machine: Due to the 
introduction of new types of machines, and to the splitting up 
of processes, with the simplification of manipulation sometimes 
entailed thereby, the question of the grade of worker to be 
employed on a given type of machine continually arises. Many 
such questions are so general as to be the subject of trade 
union negotiation, but many more are quite local to particular 
firms. For either kind there should be a works committee within 
the works to deal with their application there. 
• (b) Grievances: The quick ventilating of grievances and 
injustices to individuals or to classes of men, is of the greatest 
importance in securing good feeling. The provision of means 
for voicing such complaints acts also as a check to petty 
tyranny, and is a valuable help to the higher management in 
giving an insight into what is going on. 

A shop committee provides a suitable channel in such cases as 
the following: — 

Alleged petty tyranny by foremen ; hard cases arising out 
of too rigid application of rules, etc. ; alleged mistakes in wages 
or piece work payments; wrong dismissal, e. g., for alleged dis- 
obedience, etc., etc. 

In all cases of grievances or complaints it is most important 
that the body bringing them should be of sufficient weight and 
standing to speak its mind freely. 

(c) General Shop Conditions and Amenities: On all those 
questions which affect the community life of the factory, the 
fullest consultation is necessary, and considerable self-govern- 
ment is possible. 

The following indicate the kind of question : — 

(1.) Shop Rules: Restriction of smoking; tidiness, cleaning 
of machines, etc.; use of lavatories and cloakrooms; provision, 
care and type of overalls; time-booking arrangements; wage- 
paying arrangements, etc., etc. 

(2.) Maintenance of Discipline: It should be possible to 
promote such a spirit in a works that, not only could the 



460 APPENDIX XII 

workers have a say in the drawing up of Shop Rules, but the 
enforcing of them could also be largely in their hands. 

This would be particularly desirable with regard to enforcing 
good time-keeping; maintaining tidiness; use of lavatories and 
cloakrooms; promoting a high standard of general behaviour, 
etc., etc. 

(3.) Working Conditions: Meal hours, starting and stop- 
ping times; arrangements for holidays, etc.; arrangement of 
shifts, night work, etc. 

(4.) Accidents and Sickness: Safety appliances and prac- 
tices; machine guards, etc.; administration of First Aid; rest 
room arrangements; medical examination and advice. 

(5.) Dining Service: Consultation re requirements; criti- 
cisms of and suggestions re service; control of discipline and 
behaviour; seating arrangements, etc. 

(6.) Shop Comfort and Hygiene: Suggestions re tempera- 
ture, ventilation, washing accommodation, drying clothes, etc.; 
provision of seats at work, where possible; drinking water sup- 
ply. 

(7.) Benevolent Work: Shop collections for charities or 
hard cases among fellow workers ; sick club, convalescent, etc. ; 
saving societies; 

(d) General Social Amenities: A works tends to become a 
centre of social activities having no direct connection with its 
work, for example : 

Works picnics ; games, e. g., cricket, football, etc. ; musical so- 
cieties; etc., etc. 

These should be all organised by committees of the workers 
and not by the management. 

2. Questions on Which Joint Discussions Would Primarily be 
of Advantage to the Management 

In this group are those questions with regard to which there 
is no demand put forward by the workers, but where dis- 
cussion and explanation on the part of the management would 
be desirable, and would tend to ease some of the difficulties 
of management. The institution of works committees would 
facilitate discussion and explanation in the following in- 
stances : — 

(a) Interpretation of Management to Workers: In any 
case of new rules or new developments, or new workshop policy, 



APPENDIX XII 461 

there is always the greatest difficulty in getting the rank and 
file to understand what the management is "getting at." How- 
ever well-meaning the change may be as regards the workers, 
the mere fact that it is new and not understood is likely to lead 
to opposition. If the best use is made of committees of work- 
ers, such changes, new developments, etc., would have been dis- 
cussed, and explained to them, and it is not too much to expect 
that the members of such committees would eventually spread 
a more correct and sympathetic version of the management's 
intentions among their fellow-workers than these could get in 
any other way. 

(b) Education in Shop Processes and Trade Technique: The 
knowledge of most workers is limited to the process with which 
they are concerned, and they would have a truer sense of in- 
dustrial problems if they understood better the general tech- 
nique of the industry in which they are concerned, and the re- 
lation of their particular process to others in the chain of man- 
ufacture from raw material to finished article. 

It is possible that some of this education should be under- 
taken by technical schools, but their work in this respect can 
only be of a general nature, leaving still a field for detailed 
teaching which could only be undertaken in connection with an 
individual firm, or a small group of similar firms. Such educa- 
tion might well begin with the members of the committee of 
workers, though if found feasible it should not stop there, but 
should be made general for the whole works. Any such scheme 
should be discussed and worked out in conjunction with a com- 
mittee of workers, in order to obtain the best from it. 

(c) Promotion: It is open to question whether the filling of 
any given vacancy could profitably be discussed between the 
management and the workers. 

In connection with such appointments as shop foremen, where 
the position is filled by promoting a workman or "leading 
hand," it would at least be advisable to announce the appoint- 
ment to the workers' committee before making it generally 
known. It might perhaps be possible to explain why a particu- 
lar choice had been made. This would be indicated fairly well 
by a statement of the qualities which the management deemed 
necessary for such a post, thereby tending to head off some 
of the jealous disappointment always involved in such promo- 
tions, especially where the next in seniority is not taken. 

It has of course been urged, generally by extremists, that 



462 APPENDIX XII 

workmen should choose their own foremen by election, but this 
is not considered practical politics at present, though it may 
become possible and desirable when workers have had more 
practice in the* exercise of self-management to the limited de- 
gree here proposed. 

One of the difficulties involved in any general discussion of 
promotions is the fact that there are so many parties con- 
cerned, and all from a different point of view. For example, in 
the appointment of a foreman, the workers are concerned as 
to how far the new man is sympathetic and helpful, and inspir- 
ing to work for. The other foremen are concerned with how 
far he is their equal in education and technical attainments, 
social standing, length of service, i.e., as to whether he would 
make a good colleague. The manager is concerned, among other 
qualities, with his energy, loyalty to the firm, and ability to 
maintain discipline. Each of these three parties is looking for 
three different sets of qualities, and it is not often that a can- 
didate can be found to satisfy all. Whose views then should 
carry most weight — the men's, the other foremen's, or the 
manager's ? 

It is quite certain, however, that it is well worth while mak- 
ing some attempt to secure popular understanding and ap- 
proval of appointments made, and a workers' committee offers 
the best opportunity for this. 

It would be possible to discuss a vacancy occurring in any 
grade with all the others in that grade. For example, to dis- 
cuss with all shop foremen the possible candidates to fill a 
vacancy among the foremen. This is probably better than no 
discussion at all, and the foremen might be expected, to some 
extent, to reflect the feeling among their men. Here again, 
the establishing of any such scheme might well be discussed 
with the committee of workers. 

(d) Education in General Business Questions: This point 
is still more doubtful than the preceding. Employers continu- 
ally complain that the workers do not understand the responsi- 
bilities and the risks which they, as employers, have to carry, 
and it would seem desirable therefore to take some steps to 
enable them to do so. In some directions this would be quite 
feasible, e.g.: 

(i.) The reasons should be explained and discussed for the 
establishment of new works departments, or the re-organisation 



APPENDIX XII 463 

of existing ones, the relation of the new arrangement to the gen- 
eral manufacturing policy being demonstrated. 

(2.) Some kind of simplified works statistics might be laid 
before a committee of workers. For example : Output ; cost of 
new equipment installed; cost of tools used in given period; 
cost of raw material consumed; number employed; amount of 
bad work produced. 

(3.) Reports of activities of other part of the business might 
be laid before them. 

(a) From the commercial side, showing the difficulties to be 
met, the general attitude of customers to the firm, etc. 

(b) By the chief technical departments, design office, labora- 
tory, etc., as to the general technical developments or difficulties 
that were being dealt with. Much of such work need not be 
kept secret, and would tend to show the workers that other fac- 
tors enter into the production of economic wealth besides man- 
ual labour. 

(4.) Simple business reports, showing general trade prospects, 
might be presented. There are perhaps most difficult to give 
in any intelligible form, without publishing matter which every 
management would object to showing. Still, the attempt would 
be well worth making, and would show the workers how narrow 
is the margin between financial success and failure on which 
most manufacturing business works. Such statistics might, per- 
haps, be expressed not in actual amounts, but as proportions of 
the wage bill for the same period. 

2. TYPES OF ORGANISATION 

Having dealt in the previous section with the kinds of ques- 
tions, which, judged simply by their nature, would admit of 
joint discussion or handling, it is now necessary to consider 
what changes are needed in the structure of business manage- 
ment to carry out such proposals. The development of the 
necessary machinery presents very considerable difficulties on 
account of the slowness of action and lack of executive preci- 
sion which almost necessarily accompany democratic organisa- 
tion, and which it is the express object of most business 
organisations to avoid. 

The question of machinery for joint discussion and action 
is considered in this section in three aspects : — 

The requirements which such machinery must satisfy; the 



464 APPENDIX XII 

influence of various industrial conditions on the type of ma- 
chinery likely to be adopted in particular trades or works ; some 
detailed suggestions of shop committees of carrying scope. 

(i.) Requirements to Be Satisfied 

(a) Keeping in Touch with the Trade Unions: It is obvious 
that no works committee can be a substitute for the trade union, 
and no attempt must be made by the employer to use it in this 
way. To allay any trade union suspicion that this is the in- 
tention, and to ensure that the shop committee links up with the 
trade union organisation, it would be advisable to see that the 
trade union is represented in some fairly direct manner. This 
is specially important for any committee dealing with wages, 
piece work and such other working conditions as are the usual 
subject of trade union action. 

In the other direction, it will be necessary for the trade 
unionists to develop some means of working shop committees 
into their scheme of organisation, otherwise there will be the 
danger of a works committee, able to act more quickly through 
being on the spot, usurping the place of the local district com- 
mittee of the trade unions. 

(b) Representation of all Grades: The desirability of hav- 
ing all grades of workers represented on works committees is 
obvious, but it is not always easy to carry out owing to the 
complexity of the distribution of labour in most works. Thus, 
it is quite common for a single department, say in an engineer- 
ing works, to contain several grades of workers, from skilled 
tradesmen to labourers, and possibly women. These grades 
will belong to different unions, and there may even be dif- 
ferent,' and perhaps competing, unions represented in the same 
grade. Many of the workers also will not be in any union at all. 

(c) Touch with Management: As a large part of the aim of 
the whole development is to give the workers some sense of 
management problems and point of view, it is most desirable 
that meetings between works committees and management 
should be frequent and regular, and not looked on merely as 
means of investing grievances or deadlocks when they arise. 
The works committee must not be accidental excrescence on 
the management structure, but must be worked into it so as 
to become an integral part, with real and necessary functions. 

(d) Rapidity of Action: Delays in negotiations between em- 



APPENDIX XII 465 

ployers and labour are a constant source of irritation to the 
latter. Every effort should be made to reduce them. Where 
this is impossible, due to the complication of the questions in- 
volved, the works committee should be given enough informa- 
tion to convince it of this, and that the delay is not a deliberate 
attempt to shirk the issue. 

On the other hand, the desire to attain rapidity of action 
should not lead to haphazard and "scratch" discussions or 
negotiations. These will only result in confusion, owing to 
the likelihood that some of those who ought to take part or 
be consulted over each question will be left out, or have in- 
sufficient opportunity for weighing up the matter. The pro- 
cedure for working with or through works committees must, 
therefore, be definite and constitutional, so that, every one 
knows how to get a grievance or suggestion put forward for 
consideration, and every one concerned will be sure of receiving 
due notice of the matter. 

The procedure must not be so rigid, however, as to pre- 
clude emergency negotiations to deal with sudden crises. 

(2.) Influence of Various Industrial Conditions on the Type 
of Organisation of Shop Committees 

There is no one type of shop committee that will suit all con- 
ditions. Some industries can develop more easily in one di- 
rection and some in another, and in the sub-section are pointed 
out some of the conditions which are likely to influence this. 

(a) Type of Labour: The constitution of works committees, 
or the scheme of committees, which will suitably represent the 
workers of any particular factory, will depend very largely on 
the extent to which different trades and different grades of 
workers are involved. 

In the simplest kind of works, where only one trade or 
craft is carried out, the workers, even though of different de- 
grees of skill, would probably all be eligible for the same 
trade union. In such a case a purely trade union organisation, 
but based of course on works departments, would meet most 
of the requirements, and would probably, in fact, be already 
in existence. 

In many works, however, at least in the engineering in- 
dustry, a number of different "trades" are carried on. For 
instance, turning, automatic machine operating, blacksmith- 



466 APPENDIX XII 

ing, pattern-making, foundry work, etc. Many of these trades 
are represented by the same trade union, though the interests 
of the various sections are often antagonistic, e.g., in the case 
of turners and automatic machine operators. Some of the 
other trades mentioned belong to different unions altogether. In 
addition to these "tradesmen," will be found semi-skilled and 
unskilled labourers. For the most part these will belong to no 
union, though a few may belong to labouring unions which, how- 
ever, have no special connection with the engineering unions. 
In addition to all these, there may be women whose position 
in relation to men's unions is still uncertain, and some of whose 
interests will certainly be opposed to those of some of the men. 
The best way of representing all these different groups will 
depend on their relative proportion and distribution in any 
given works. Where women are employed in any considerable 
numbers it will probably be advisable for them to be repre- 
sented independently of the men. For the rest it will prob- 
ably be necessary to have at least two kinds of works commit- 
tees: one representing trade unionists as such, chosen for con- 
venience by departments, the other representing simply 
works departments. The first would deal with wages and 
the type of question usually forming the subject of discussion 
between employers and trade unions. The c f her would deal 
with all other workshop conditions. The firat, being based 
on, trade unions, would automatically take account of dis- 
tinctions between different trades and different grades, whereas 
the second would be dealing with those questions in which 
such distinctions do not matter very much. 

(b) Stability and Regularity of Employment: Where work 
is of an irregular or seasonal nature and workers are con- 
stantly being taken on and turned off, only the very simplest 
kind of committee of workers would be possible. In such in- 
dustries probably nothing but a trade union organisation with- 
in the works would be possible. This would draw its strength 
from the existence of the trade union outside, which would, of 
course, be largely independent of trade fluctuations, and would 
be able to reconstitute the works committee as often as neces- 
sary, thus keeping it in existence, even should most of the 
previous members have been discharged through slackness. 

(c) Elaboration of Management Organisation: The extent 
to which management functions can be delegated, or manage- 
ment questions and policy be discussed with the workers de- 



APPENDIX XII 467 

pends very largely on the degree of completeness with which 
the management itself is organised. Where this is haphazard 
and management consists of a succession of emergencies, only 
autocratic control is possible, being the only method which 
is quick-acting and mobile enough. Therefore, the better 
organised and more constitutional (in the sense of having 
known rules and procedures) the management is, the more pos- 
sible is it for policy to be discussed with the workers. 

(3.) Some Schemes Suggested 

The following suggestions for shop organisations of workers 
are intended to form one scheme. Their individual value, 
however, does not depend on the adoption of the scheme as a 
whole, each being good as far as it goes. 

(a) Shop Stewards Committee: As pointed out in the last 
sub-section, in a factory where the trade union is strong, there 
will probably be a shop stewards or trade union committee al- 
ready in existence. This is, of course, a committee of workers 
only, elected generally by the trade union members in the 
works, to look after their interests and to conduct negotia- 
tions for them with the management. Sometimes the stewards 
carry out other purely trade union work, such as collecting 
subscriptions, obtaining new members, explaining union rules, 
etc. Such a committee is the most obvious and simplest type of 
works committee, and where the composition of the shop is 
simple, i.e., mainly one trade, with no very great differences in 
grade, a shop stewards committee could deal with many of the 
questions laid down as suitable for joint handling. 

It is doubtful, however, whether a shop stewards committee 
can, or should, cover the full range of workers' activities, ex- 
cept in the very simplest type of works. The mere fact that, as 
a purely trade union organisation, it will deal primarily with 
wages and piece-work questions, will tend to introduce an at- 
mosphere of bargaining, which would make the discussion of 
more general questions very difficult. Further, such a com- 
mittee would be likely to consider very little else than the in- 
terests of the trade union, or of themselves as trade unionists. 
While this is no doubt quite legitimate as regards such ques- 
tions as wages, the more general questions of work-shop ameni- 
ties should be considered from the point of view of the works 
as a community in which the workers have common interests 



468 APPENDIX XII 

with the management in finding and maintaining the best con- 
ditions possible. Moreover, in many shops, where workers of 
widely differing grades and trades are employed, a shop stew- 
ards committee is not likely to represent truly the whole of the 
workers, but only the better organised sections. 

The shop stewards committee, in the engineering trade at 
least, is fairly certain to constitute itself without any help from 
the management. The management should hasten to. recognise 
it, and give it every facility for carrying on its business, and 
should endeavour to give it a recognised status and to impress 
it with a sense of responsibility. 

It would probably be desirable that shop stewards should be 
elected by secret ballot rather than by show of hands in 
open meeting, in order that the most responsible men may be 
chosen, and not merely the loudest talkers or the most popu- 
lar. It seems better, also, that stewards should be elected 
for a certain definite term, instead of holding office, as is some- 
times the case now, until they resign, leave the firm, or are 
actually deposed. The shop stewards committee, being primarily 
a workers' and trade union affair, both these points are outside 
the legitimate field of action of the management. The lat- 
ter's willingness to recognise and work through the commit- 
tee should, however, confer some right to make suggestions 
even in such matters as these. 

The facilities granted by the management might very well 
include a room on the works premises in which to hold meetings, 
and a place to keep papers, etc. If works conditions make it 
difficult for the stewards to meet out of work hours, it would 
be well to allow them to hold committee meetings in working 
hours at recognised times. The management should also 
arrange periodic joint meetings with the committee, to enable 
both sides to bring forward matters of discussion. 

The composition of the joint meeting between the commit- 
tee of shop stewards and the management is worth considering 
shortly. In the conception here set forth the shop stewards 
committee is a complete entity by itself; it is not merely the 
workers' section of some larger composite committee of man- 
agement and workers. The joint meetings are rather in the 
nature of a standing arrangement on the part of the manage- 
ment for receiving deputations from the workers. For this pur- 
pose the personnel of the management section need not be fixed, 
but could well be varied according to the subjects to be dis- 



APPENDIX XII 469 

cussed. It should always include, however, the highest execu- 
tive authority concerned with the works. For the rest, there 
might be the various departmental managers, and, sometimes, 
some of the foremen. As the joint meeting is not an instru- 
ment of management, taking decisions by vote, the number of 
the management contingent does not really matter, beyond as- 
suring that all useful points of view are represented. 

Too much importance can hardly be laid on the desirability 
of regular joint meetings, as against ad hoc meetings called 
to discuss special grievances. According to the first plan, each 
side becomes used to meeting the other in the ordinary way of 
business, say once a month, when no special issue is at stake, 
and no special tension is in the air. Each can hardly fail to ab- 
sorb something of the other's point of view. At a special ad 
hoc meeting, on the other hand, each side is apt to regard as its 
business, not the discussion of a question on its merits, but 
simply the making out of a case. And the fact that a meeting 
is called specially means that expectations of results are 
raised among the other workers, which make it difficult to al- 
low the necessary time or number of meetings for the proper 
discussion of a complicated question. 

Where women are employed in considerable numbers along 
with men, the question of their representation by stewards 
becomes important. It is as yet too early to say how this 
situation can best be met. If they are eligible for member- 
ship of the same trades unions as the men, the shop stewards 
committee might consist of representatives of both. But, con- 
sidering the situation which will arise after the war, when the 
interests of the men and of the women will often be opposed, 
this solution does not seem very promising at present. 

Another plan would be for a separate women's shop stew- 
ards committee to be formed, which would also meet the 
management periodically and be, in fact, a duplicate of the 
men's organisation. It would probably also hold periodic joint 
meetings with the men's committee, to unify their policies as far 
as possible. This plan is somewhat cumbersome, but seems to 
be the only one feasible at present on account of the divergence 
of interest and the very different stage of development in or- 
ganisation of men and women. 

(b) Social Union: Some organisation for looking after 
recreation is in existence in many works, and if not, there is 



470 APPENDIX XII 

much to be said for the institution of such a body as the social 
union here described. 

Although the purpose which calls together the members of 
a works community is, of course, not the fostering of social 
life and amenities, there is no doubt that members of such 
communities do attain a fuller life and more satisfaction from 
their association together, when common recreation is added to 
common work. It may, of course, be urged against such a 
development of community life in industry, that it is better for 
people to get away from their work and to meet quite another 
set in their leisure times. This is no doubt true enough, but 
the number of people who take advantage of it is probably very 
much less than would be affected by social activities connected 
with the works. The development of such activities will, in con- 
sequence, almost certainly have more effect in spreading op- 
portunities for fuller life than it will have in restricting them. 
Moreover, if the works is a large one, the differences in out- 
look between the various sections are perhaps quite as great 
as can be met with outside. For this reason the cardinal 
principle for such organisations is to mix up the different sec- 
tions and grades, especially the works and the office depart- 
ments. 

The sphere of the social union includes all activities other 
than those affecting the work for which the firm is organised. 
This sphere being outside the work of the firm, the organisa- 
tion should be entirely voluntary and in the hands of the 
workers, though the management may well provide facilities 
such as rooms and playing fields. 

Two main schemes of organisation are usual. In the first a 
general council is elected by the members, or, if possible, 
by all the employes, irrespective of department or grade. This 
council is responsible for the general policy of the social union, 
holds the funds, and undertakes the starting and supervising 
of smaller organisations for specific purposes. Thus, for each 
activity a club or society would be formed under the auspices 
of the council. The clubs would manage their own affairs 
and make their own detail arrangements. 

It is most desirable that the social union should be self- 
supporting as far as running expenses go, and should not be 
subsidised by the management, as is sometimes done. A small 
subscription should be paid weekly by every member, such 
subscription admitting them to any or all clubs. The funds 



APPENDIX XII 471 

should be held by the council, and spent according to the needs 
of the various clubs, not according to the subscriptions traceable 
to the membership of each. This is very much better than mak- 
ing the finances of each club self-supporting, since it em- 
phasises the "community" feeling, is very simple, and enables 
some forms of recreation to be carried on which could not pos- 
sibly be made to pay for themselves 

The second general type of social union organisation involves 
making the clubs themselves the basis. Each levies its own 
subscriptions and pays its own expenses, and the secretaries of 
the clubs form a council for general management. This is a 
less desirable arrangement because each member of the council 
is apt to regard himself as there only to look after the interests 
of his club, rather than the whole. The starting of new ac- 
tivities is also less easy than under the first scheme. 

(c) Welfare Committee: The two organisations suggested 
so far, viz., shop stewards committee and social union, do not 
cover the whole range of functions outlined in Section I. In 
considering how much of that field still remains to be covered, 
it is simplest first to mark off, mentally, the sphere of the social 
union, viz., social activities outside working hours. This leaves 
clear the real problem, viz., all the questions affecting the work 
and the conditions of work of the firm. These are then con- 
ceived as falling into two groups. First there are those ques- 
tions in which the interests of the workers may be opposed to 
those of the employer. These are concerned with such mat- 
ters as wage and piece rates, penalties for spoiled work, etc. 
With regard to these discussion is bound to be of the nature of 
bargaining, and these are the field for the shop stewards com- 
mittee, negotiating by means of the periodical joint meetings 
with the management. 

There remains, however, a second class of question, in which 
there is no clash of interest between employer and employed. 
These are concerned mainly with regulating the "community 
life" of the works, and include all questions of general shop 
conditions and amenities, and the more purely educational mat- 
ters. For dealing with this group a composite committee of 
management and workers, here called the Welfare Committee, 
is suggested. 

This would consist of two parts: Representatives elected by 
workers, and nominees of the management. 

The elected side might well represent the offices, both tech- 



472 APPENDIX XII 

nical and clerical, as well as the works, and members would 
be elected by departments, no account being taken of the 
various grades. Where women are employed it would prob- 
ably be desirable for them to elect separate representatives. If 
they are in departments by themselves, this would naturally 
happen. If the departments are mixed, the men and women 
of such departments would each send representatives. 

The trade union or unions most concerned with the work 
of the firm should be represented in some fairly direct way. 
This might be done in either of two ways : first, if a shop 
stewards committee exists, it might be asked to send one or 
more representatives ; second, or each of the main trade unions 
represented in the works might elect one or more representa- 
tives to represent their members as trade unionists. 

The management section should contain, in general, the 
highest members of the management who concern themselves 
with the running of the works; it would be no use to have 
here men in subordinate positions, as much of the discussion 
would deal with matters beyond their jurisdiction. More- 
over, the opportunity for the higher management to get into 
touch with the workers would be too important to miss. It 
is doubtful whether there is any need for the workers' sec- 
tion of the welfare committee to meet separately, though there 
is no objection to this if thought desirable. In any case a 
good many questions can be handed over by the joint meeting 
to sub-committees for working out, and such sub-committees 
can, where desirable, consist entirely of workers. 

It may be urged that the welfare committee is an unneces- 
sary complication, and, either that its work could be carried 
out by the shop stewards committee or that the work of both 
could be handled by a single composite shop committee of 
management and workers. In practice, however, a committee 
of the workers sitting separately to consider those interests that 
are, or appear to be, opposed, with regular deputations to the 
management, and a composite committee of workers and man- 
agement sitting together to discuss identical interests would 
seem the best solution of a difficult problem. 

Everything considered, therefore, there seems, in many 
works at least, to be a good case for the institution of both 
organisations, that of the shop stewards and that of the welfare 
committee. The conditions making the latter desirable and 
possible would seem to be:— 



APPENDIX XII 473 

(i.) A management sufficiently methodical and constitutional 
to make previous discussion of developments feasible. 

(2.) The conditions of employment fairly stable. 

(3.) The trades and grades included in the shop so varied 
and intermixed as to make representation by a committee of 
trade union shop stewards incomplete. 

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF SECTIONS I AND 2 

Gathering together the views and suggestions made in the 
foregoing pages, it is felt that three separate organisations 
within the works are necessary to represent the workers in 
the highly developed and elaborate organisms which modern 
factories tend to become. 

It is not sufficient criticism of such a proposal to say that 
it is too complicated. Modern industry is complicated and the 
attempt to introduce democratic ideas into its governance will 
necessarily make it more so. As already pointed out, the* 
scheme need not be accepted in its entirety. For any trade or 
firm fortunate enough to operate under simpler conditions than 
those here assumed, only such of the suggestions need be 
accepted as suit its case. 

The scope of the three committees is shown by the follow- 
ing summary: 

(a) Shop Stewards Committee 

Sphere. Controversial questions where interests of employer 
and worker are apparently opposed. 

Constitution. Consists of trade unionist workers elected by 
works departments. Sits by itself, but has regular meetings 
with the management. 

Examples of Questions Dealt With : Wage and piece 
rates ; The carrying out of trade union agreements ; Negotiations 
re application of legislation to the workers represented, e. g., 
dilution, exemption from recruiting; The carrying out of na- 
tional agreements re restoration of trade union conditions, de- 
mobilisation of war industries, etc.; Introduction of new proc- 
esses ; Ventilation of grievances re any of above ; etc., etc. 

(&) Welfare Committee 

Sphere. "Community" questions, where there is no clash 
between interests of employer and worker. 



474 APPENDIX XII 

Constitution. Composite committee of management and 
workers, with some direct representation of trade unions. Sits 
as one body, with some questions relegated to sub-committees, 
consisting either wholly of workers or of workers and manage- 
ment, according to the nature of the case. 

Examples of Questions Dealt With : Shop rules ; Such 
working conditions as starting and stopping times, meal hours, 
night shift arrangements, etc. ; Accident and sickness arrange- 
ments; Shop comfort and hygiene; Benevolent work such as 
collections for charities, hard cases of illness or accident among 
the workers; Education schemes; Trade technique; New works 
developments; Statistics of works activity; Business outlook; 
Promotions — explanation and, if possible, consultation; Ven- 
tilation of grievances re any of above. 

(c) Social Union 

Sphere. Social amenities, mainly outside working hours. 

Constitution. Includes any or all grades of management 
and workers. Governing body elected by members irrespec- 
tive of trade, grade, or sex. 

Examples of Activities: Institution of clubs for sports — 
cricket, football, swimming, etc. Recreative societies — orches- 
tral, choral, debating, etc. Arranging social events — picnics, 
dances, etc. Provision of games, library, etc., for use in meal 
hours. Administration of club rooms. 

4. comments on working 

An attempt to institute a scheme of shop committees on 
the general lines of those here described revealed certain dif- 
ficulties, of which the following are instances: 

If a works committee is to deal with the actual conditions 
under which work is carried on, and if its work is to be real, 
there is every possibility of friction arising, due to the com- 
mittee infringing the sphere of authority of the shop foremen. 
Not only will specific complaints and objections regarding 
actions or decisions of foremen be brought up, but more 
general questions of shop management will be discussed, on 
which the foremen would naturally expect to be consulted 
previously to their men. Some of these difficulties would be 
lessened if the foremen were members of the works commit- 
tees, but this seems hardly possible, except in very small works. 



APPENDIX XII 475 

It must never be forgotten that the foremen have definite 
management functions to perform which cannot be discharged 
if their authority is continually called in question, or if they 
are continually harassed by complaints behind their backs. 
Nor can they have any prestige if arrangements or rules 
affecting their control or method of management are made 
without them having their full share in the discussion of 
them. The difficulty arises, therefore, how on the one hand 
to maintain the foremen's position as a real link in the chain 
of executive authority, and on the other hand to promote 
direct discussion between the workers and the higher manage- 
ment. The solving of this difficulty depends to some extent 
at least on the devising of suitable procedure and machinery 
for keeping all grades of management in touch with each other, 
and for confining the activities of the works committees to 
fairly definite and known spheres. 

The exact nature of this machinery would depend on the 
organisation of each particular firm. It will, in general, be 
advisable to lay down that previous notice shall be given of 
all subjects to be brought up at a works committee meeting, 
so that a full agenda may be prepared. This agenda should 
then be circulated freely among the shop foremen and other 
grades of management, so that they may know what is going 
forward. Full minutes of the proceedings of all meetings 
should be kept, and these again should be circulated to all 
grades of management. 

To facilitate such arrangements it may be advisable for 
the management to provide a secretary whose duties would 
be twofold — the preparation of the agenda and the writing 
out and following up of the minutes. In making out the 
agenda the secretary should make full enquiries with regard 
to all subjects brought forward by workers, and should prepare 
a short statement of each case to issue with the agenda. The 
secretary in circulating the agenda would then be able to 
learn, from the foremen and others, to what extent each was 
interested or concerned in any particular item. Those specially 
concerned might then be invited to attend the meeting to 
take part in the discussion. If a foreman intimated that 
he had decided views on some subject and wished them to be 
taken into account, discussion at the meeting should be of 
preliminary nature only and limited to eliciting the full case as 
seen by the workers. Further discussion with the committee 



476 APPENDIX XII 

would be reserved until the management had had time to 
consult the foremen or others concerned. 

The certainty on the part of all grades of management that 
no subject would be discussed of which they had not had no- 
tice; the privilege of having final discussion of any subject 
postponed, pending the statement of their views; and finally 
the circulation of all minutes showing what took place at the 
meetings, should go a long way to making the works commit- 
tees run smoothly. 

For any recognised works committees the management should 
see that they have such facilities put at their disposal as will 
enable them to carry out their work, and will give them stand- 
ing and authority in the works community. In the case of 
committees dealing with social work outside the direct work 
of the shop, all meetings and work can be expected to take 
place outside working hours. This should also apply in a 
general way to meetings of shop stewards or of the welfare 
committee, but it may happen as, for instance, where a night 
shift is being worked, that it is almost impossible for the 
members to get together except at some time during working 
hours. In such cases permission should be given for meetings 
at regular stated times, say once a fortnight, or once a month, 
and the attendance at these meetings would be considered 
part of the ordinary work of the members, and they would 
be paid accordingly. Where possible, however, it is very much 
better for meetings to be arranged entirely outside working 
hours, in which case no payment should be offered, the work 
being looked on as in the nature of voluntary public work. 

A committee room should be provided, and in the case of 
the welfare committee, the secretary might also be provided 
by the management. For firms suitably placed it is most de- 
sirable that a playing field should be provided, suitably laid 
out for various games. Rent can be asked for it by the man- 
agement if thought desirable and can be paid by a social union 
such as that described here. In the case of all kinds of 
recognised works committees the thing to aim at is to make 
their work an integral part of the organisation of the works 
community, providing whatever facilities are needed to make 
it effective. On the other hand, anything like subsidising of 
works committees by the management must be avoided. 



APPENDIX XIII 

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY A GROUP 
OF TWENTY BRITISH QUAKER EMPLOYERS 
AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DISCUSSION IN 1917 AND 
1918 

For some time past a number of employers belonging to the 
Society of Friends have been feeling, as many others are doing, 
the duty of examining the way in which their religious faith 
can be given fuller expression in business life. The following 
statement, designed as a stimulus to practical action, is an 
attempt to see how the Quaker conception of the divine worth 
of all life, which is accepted in wide circles of thought to-day, 
affects our modern industrial life, and in particular the re- 
lationship between employers and employed. 

There is perhaps nothing in this statement that is new, 
nothing that has not been found in the practise of some em- 
ployers for years, nothing to which those responsible for the 
statement would have refused their assent before the war. 
But the period of reconstruction that must follow the war 
offers an opportunity for a general raising of industrial stand- 
ards such as our generation has not had before, and imposes a 
corresponding obligation on each of us to define and face our 
personal responsibilities. 

We have sought in the course of our discussions primarily 
to discover and define the duties of employers within the 
present industrial system, not because we hold a brief for it 
or regard it as ideal, but because the task of changing it 
immediately is beyond the power of individual employers or 
groups of employers. We should indeed, as citizens, work 
towards its alteration in so far as we regard it as inconsistent 
with the principles of our religion, but in the meantime we 
cannot afford to neglect the urgent needs and the outstanding 
opportunities which confront us in our own factories. For 

477 



478 APPENDIX XIII 

most of us, does not our business afford the greatest opportunity 
we have of serving our fellow-men, and have we yet ever fully 
tested the potentialities of the present system, whatever criti- 
cisms may be urged against it, as a field for applied Christian 
ethics ? 

The point of view from which we have sought to approach 
the problem is that employers are persons fulfilling certain 
necessary functions of organisation in the great process of in- 
dustry, side by side with all others engaged in performing the 
other functions necessary to the maintenance of that process, 
and that each of these functions demands its own qualities 
of character and capacity and carries with it its own obliga- 
tions and responsibilities. We speak only for employers en- 
gaged in the actual management of businesses, but we wish 
to state our opinion that shareholders cannot divest themselves 
of their responsibility for the conditions under which their 
dividends are earned. 

We place what we believe to be our true status and function 
in society in the forefront of our statement, because we believe 
that its full recognition is the first need of industry to-day. We 
believe that it is only in so far as those engaged in industry 
are inspired by a new spirit and regard industry as a national 
service, to be carried on for the benefit of the community, that 
any general improvement in industrial relations is possible. 

With this initial word of explanation, we give our con- 
clusions under the following heads: 

Wages. 

The Status of the Workers. 

Security of Employment. 

Working Conditions and the Social Life of the Workers. 

Appropriation of "Surplus Profits." 

WAGES 

We believe that the following propositions may be laid down 
with regard to wages : 

(i) In determining the rate of wage to be paid, a distinction 
must be drawn between the minimum or "basic" wage and 
wages above the minimum, which may be referred to as 
"secondary" wages. The former should be determined primar- 
ily by human needs; the latter by the value of the service 



APPENDIX XIII 479 

rendered, as compared with the value of the services rendered 
by workers who are receiving the basic or minimum wages. 

(2) The Basic Wages. 

(a) Men. The wages paid to a man of average industry 
and capacity should at least enable him to marry, to live 
in a decent house, and to provide the necessaries of physi- 
cal efficiency for a normal family, while allowing a rea- 
sonable margin for contingencies and recreation. 

(&) Women. In the case of women engaged upon work 
which has hitherto been regarded as man's work, the pay- 
ment should be equal for the same volume and quality of 
work, assuming equal adaptability to other necessary work. 

In the case of purely women's work, the basic wage for 
a woman of average industry and capacity should be the 
sum necessary to maintain her in a decent dwelling and 
in a state of full physical efficiency, and to allow a rea- 
sonable margin for contingencies and recreation. 

(3) The Secondary Wage. 

The secondary wage is remuneration for any special gift, or 
qualification necessary for the performance of a particular 
function, e. g., special skill as a tradesman ; the special strength 
of some physical organ, as in the case of a gas stoker ; special 
muscular training and power, such as that of a lumberman; 
responsibility for human life, as in the case of locomotive 
engine drivers. 

We believe that if once the basic wage is fixed at a right 
level, the precise amount of the secondary wage to be paid 
for different services may be left, as at present, to bargaining. 
But in conducting such bargaining the employer should remem- 
ber that the pleasure and varieties of life are just as dear to the 
workers as to himself, and they, too, need comfort, rest and 
change of scene. 

It is recognised that the payment of wages on the above basis 
will require a larger increase in the wage rates in many indus- 
tries than some of them could at present hear. We believe, 
however, that the payment of such wages should be regarded 
by employers as a necessary business liability. Till that is 
discharged they should very strictly limit their own remunera- 
tion for their services, nor should they pay larger dividends 
upon borrowed capital than is essential to ensure an adequate 
supply. But if at the moment really adequate wages cannot 



4 8o APPENDIX XIII 

be paid, the earnest attention of the management should be 
turned to improving the processes and general efficiency of 
their business organisation, by the use of engineering and 
chemical science, adequate costing systems, etc. 

While we emphasise the obligation on employers to do every- 
thing in their power to ensure the businesses under their con- 
trol shall be able to pay wages on the above basis, we believe 
that the cooperation of the employees in the form of better and 
more intelligent work will generally be needed to increase the 
funds available. The need of evoking this added interest and 
stimulating a cooperative spirit should be borne in mind when 
deciding on methods of remuneration. 

It may be found that the most effective service can be ren- 
dered to the community in some industries only by some form 
of combination of independent firms. Where this is the case, 
we should assist in the organisation and management of such 
combinations, but only on condition that the consumer is ef- 
fectively protected, by state action or otherwise, against ex- 
ploitation. 

STATUS 

The worker asks to-day for more than an improvement in his 
economic position. He claims from employers and managers 
the clear recognition of his rights as a person. The justice of 
this claim our religion compels us to admit. We cannot regard 
human beings as if they were merely so many units of brain 
power, so many of nervous or muscular energy. We must 
cooperate with them, and treat them as we ourselves should 
wish to be treated. This position involves the surrender by 
capital of its supposed right to dictate to labour the conditions 
under which work shall be carried on. It involves more; the 
frank avowal that all matters affecting the workers should be 
decided in consultation with them, when once they are recog- 
nised as members of an all-embracing human brotherhood. 

What machinery can be devised which will enable industry 
to adopt these principles, without endangering its productivity, 
on which the wages of both labour and capital ultimately 
depend ? 

In answering this question we shall make certain definite 
proposals, but we wish to preface them by stating our belief 
that the creation of machinery, however excellent, is less im- 



APPENDIX XIII 481 

portant than a living desire on the part of employers to give 
full expression to their fundamental religious beliefs in the 
relations they establish with their workers. 

We now pass to detailed proposals. 

The management of a business may be divided broadly 
under three heads: 

(a) Financial 

The provision of capital and appropriation of profit; rela- 
tions with shareholders, bankers, competing businesses, the 
state, terms of credit, etc. 

(b) Commercial 

Determination of the general character of the goods to be 
manufactured or of the class of work to be undertaken; pur- 
chase of materials; sale of product; advertising. 

(c) Industrial 

Control of processes and machinery; nature of product; en- 
gagement and dismissal of employees; hours of work, rates of 
pay, bonuses, etc.; welfare work; shop discipline; relations 
with trade unions. 

With the financial and commercial aspects of the business 
the worker is not at present so directly concerned, although 
indirectly they affect him vitally. But in the industrial policy 
of the business he is directly and continuously interested, and 
he is capable of helping to determine it. How can we give 
him an opportunity of doing this? 

As an initial step, any existing shop committees, such as 
that of the shop stewards in engineering works, should be 
formally recognised. But, in the absence of such bodies, we 
recommend the establishment of committees or works coun- 
cils, in which the chosen representatives of the workers should 
discuss matters which concern them, first alone, but secondly, 
and at frequent intervals, with the management. In this con- 
nection it would be essential to secure the cooperation of trade 
unions and to make it certain that their position would not be 
prejudiced by the existence of such councils. When prac- 
ticable, it might be well to provide for the appointment by 
the trade union concerned of the employees to serve on the 
councils or committees, which should constitute the regular 
medium through which the employees address suggestions and 
complaints to the management, and discuss with it all pro- 
posed changes which are likely to affect them. 



482 APPENDIX XIII 

Questions of wage rates, discipline and shop rules, the en- 
gagement and dismissal of workers, the time and duration of 
factory holidays, adjustments of working hours and number 
of staff to meet shortage of work, health, canteen, and other 
social work might be referred to these councils for their 
opinion or decision. It is fully realised that experience on 
works councils may and should train the members for greater 
participation in the control of the business, and enable them 
ultimately to take part in the commercial and financial ad- 
ministration. 

When industry, now being conducted by methods hurriedly 
devised to meet abnormal exigencies, is reestablished on a 
permanent peace footing, conditions will be widely different 
from those existing before the war. It is of the utmost im- 
portance that employers and workers should cooperate, frankly 
and cordially, in determining the new conditions. The appli- 
cation to individual firms of general principles agreed upon 
by the trade unions and employers might very suitably be dis- 
cussed in the councils referred to above. 

SECURITY OF EMPLOYMENT 

Regarding the industrial life of the worker from the stand- 
point of his whole personality, hardly anything is of greater 
moment than that while he is willing to work and capable of 
doing so he should be able to rely upon a regular income. 
It is universally acknowledged that insecurity of employment, 
which is found in the most aggravated form among casual 
workers, such as dockers, has a deteriorating effect on both 
physique and character. We believe, moreover, that restricted 
output, and opposition to the introduction of machinery, are 
almost always the result of the employee's fear that he or his 
fellow-worker may be thrown out of employment. 

We believe that it is the duty of employers to do their 
utmost to abolish casual labour and to render employment as 
regular as possible. 

It is not within the scope of this memorandum to discuss 
any measures which should be taken by the state, or by trade 
unions or employers' federations, in furtherance of these ends. 
But individual employers can and should, do much to remedy 
the present evil, and we make the following suggestions: 

(i) The business should be carefully organised 



APPENDIX XIII 483 

(a) With a view to reducing the employment of casual 
labour to the very lowest limit; and 

(b) To regularising work throughout the year so far as 
possible. 

(2) Where labour-saving machinery is introduced every 
effort should be made to absorb the workers displaced, without 
loss of wage, in other departments of the business. If this is 
impracticable, the firm should endeavour to find work for them 
elsewhere. The same rule applies to a temporary surplus of 
labour which may be created by any improvement in production. 

A guarantee to absorb displaced workers in other depart- 
ments may lead to a temporary surplus of labour, but in most 
cases this condition of things would soon be rectified by the 
normal and inevitable leakage of labour. A portion of any 
extra profits arising from labour-saving improvements might 
be placed to a special reserve fund to compensate workers who 
may be displaced and cannot be absorbed or placed elsewhere. 

(3) The dismissal of employees should only take place as a 
disciplinary measure in the last resort. Only men and women 
who can be relied upon to act justly should be given the power 
of suspension ; and appeal to the management should always 
be allowed before dismissal. The matter will frequently be 
one for consultation with the workers. 

(4) When adolescents are employed on work which does 
not fit them for any adult occupation, special provision should 
be made either for their absorption when they reach adult age 
or for their training for some alternative occupation. 

WORKING CONDITIONS 

The working conditions of a factory should enable and 
encourage every worker to be and to do his best. These con- 
ditions may be considered under two heads. 

Personal Environment 

From the moment that a worker enters a factory he should 
be regarded as an integral part of a living organism, not a 
mere dividend-producing machine, and treated with respect 
and courtesy. There should be no nagging or bullying by 
those in authority, but, on the contrary, insight and leader- 
ship. This involves careful choice of overlookers and man- 



484 APPENDIX XIII 

agers, who should be able both to lead and inspire. At present 
such officers are often selected solely on account of their tech- 
nical knowledge, and sometimes, it is to be feared, because 
they possess the faculty of getting work out of men by driving 
them. 

But if the managers and foremen are to be men of the 
right type, they should have ample opportunities for becoming 
acquainted with the employer's point of view, and also for 
acquiring a broad, sane outlook on human and industrial re- 
lationships. Such opportunities could hardly be given in the 
course of one or two conferences; but a series of classes or 
conferences under inspiring leadership might be arranged, some 
for those already in positions of responsibility, others for those 
who desire to fit themselves for such posts in the future. The 
instruction given should cover a fairly wide field, and deal 
inter alia with economics, industrial history, trade unionism, 
and psychology. 

We have been informed that in some localities much ad- 
vantage has already been derived from such classes. Where 
they do not exist, we think that employers might suitably try 
to introduce them in connection with their own factories, or 
possibly in association with others in the neighbourhood. 

It has been suggested, and the idea is well worthy of con- 
sideration, that workers might be encouraged to a far greater 
extent than is usual to make themselves responsible for main- 
taining discipline. We have been told of cases in which ex- 
periments in this direction have been markedly successful. 

Happiness in work should be regarded as a definite aim 
and asset, and the personal well-being of every worker should 
be an essential part of the employer's objective. 



Material Environment 

Employers should surround their employees with a material 
environment at work such as they would desire for themselves 
or for their children. This will mean that workrooms are 
properly ventilated and kept at suitable temperatures, that 
they are adequately lit, and that due regard is paid to cleanli- 
ness. Cloak-rooms and lavatories should be so kept that em- 
ployees coming from well-kept homes may find no cause for 
complaint. The workers should be safeguarded against any 



APPENDIX XIII 485 

undue strain from the length of the working day or the severity 
of labour. In determining systems of payment it should never 
be forgotten that unwise methods of stimulating workers to 
do their utmost may result in overstrain. Facilities should 
be given them for spending the dinner-hour under restful and 
comfortable conditions, as well as for obtaining food at rea- 
sonable rates. If such facilities cannot be provided within 
the factory they might perhaps be arranged outside. 

Again, in organising the work, employers should remember 
that confinement to one monotonous task, not only month 
after month but year after year, is apt to deaden the intellect 
and depress the vitality of the worker. 

We have merely given examples of the many ways in which 
a fundamental religious principle must inevitably react upon 
the conditions of the factory. If it be urged that to carry 
out the above suggestions would often involve too great an ex- 
penditure, we reply that inefficiency and low productivity in 
the workers are frequently due to the absence of suitable 
working conditions. 

Social Conditions 

We have considered the relation of the employer as such 
to the problems of providing adequate housing accommoda- 
tion, and full facilities for the recreation and education of the 
workers. It seems to us, however, that his responsibility in 
this connection, as employer, ends with the payment of wages 
which will allow his workers to live in comfortable homes, 
and with the establishment of a working day which will leave 
them time for recreation, reading, or to attend educational 
classes. With the employer's duties as citizen, which will bring 
him into close touch, not only with the housing and educational 
problems but many others, we are not here concerned, with the 
proviso that his aim shall always be to subordinate industry 
to the needs of citizenship, rather than citizenship to the 
needs of industry. We welcome the legislative proposals now 
being made for the improvement of the national educational 
system, and consider that employers should put up with any 
inconvenience rather than hamper their achievement. 

APPROPRIATION OF "SURPLUS PROFITS" 

We have discussed the principles which should be applied 
to the appropriation of "surplus profits" where such exist. 



486 APPENDIX XIII 

By "surplus profits" is here meant any surplus which may 
remain over when labour has been paid on the scale referred 
to above, and managers and directors have been remunerated 
according to the market value of their services; when capital 
has received the rate of interest necessary to ensure an ade- 
quate supply, having regard to the risk involved, and when 
necessary reserves have been made for the security and de- 
velopment of the business. 

(i) Surplus profits may go to one or more of the following: 

(a) The proprietors of the business, whether private indi- 
viduals or ordinary shareholders. 

(b) The directors and principal managers, who may or may 
not be the same as the persons mentioned under (a). 

(c) The employees. 

(d) The consumers. 

(e) The community generally. 

(2) We cannot believe that either the proprietors or the 
workers are entitled to the whole of the surplus profits of the 
business, though they might reasonably ask for such a share as 
would give them an interest in its financial prosperity. 

(3) The consumer should never be exploited. The price 
charged to him should always be reasonable, having in view 
the average cost of production and distribution; and the state 
should be asked to interfere to protect his interests when they 
are threatened by monopoly. 

(4) We believe that in equity the community may claim 
the greater part of surplus profits. If this is not taken in the 
form of taxation, we think that it should be regarded by those 
into whose hands it passes as held in trust for the community. 
We are not prepared to suggest in detail schemes by which 
such a trust should be administered. If the profits are taken 
in the ordinary way by the proprietors, they should be re- 
garded as a trust and spent for the common good, or the 
proprietors might limit the amount they themselves took out of 
the business, while surplus profits were put into a separate 
account, and spent, at the joint discretion of the proprietors 
and workers, for the benefit of the general public. Our point 
is that the bulk of them at least belongs to the community, 
and should be used in its interests. 

In this connection we would ask all employers to consider 
very carefully whether their style of living and personal ex- 



APPENDIX XIII 487 

penditure are restricted to what is needed to ensure the efficient 
performance of their functions in society. More than this is 
waste, and is, moreover, a great cause of class divisions. 

CONCLUSION 

In regard to many of the matters referred to in the preceding 
pages there is ample room for experiments. Pioneers and ex- 
plorers, and "the makers of roads," are needed just as urgently 
in the industrial sphere as in the opening up of new tracts of 
fertile country. But we believe that if the longing for a better 
social order once grips the employing classes, such pioneers 
will not be lacking. 

We believe it to be our duty to promote a progressive spirit 
in the various trade organisations with which we may be asso- 
ciated. In this connection we suggest the desirability of giving 
full information as to wages, average costs, and average pro- 
fits in the industry, as a basis for effectual collective bargain- 
ing, and as a recognition of the public character of our in- 
dustrial functions. 

Some employer may tell us that we are asking him to draw 
too many practical inferences from a religious formula. But 
the conviction we have outlined is more than a formula. It 
is a vantage ground, from which we can survey the whole 
field of social and industrial life, seeing in it, not sheer blind 
turmoil, but a vast meaning and a vast hope. There is but 
one way of escaping from the implications of such a convic- 
tion, to abandon it entirely, to forsake the vantage ground, 
and to forget the only vision that could dominate our whole 
lives. Then the world of industry may revert to a soulless 
chaos in which we strive for our own ends. But those ends, 
even as we achieve them, will seem meaningless and vain. 

Doubtless, to take the other course, and claim for our re- 
ligious faith the final word upon the problems with which in- 
dustry confronts us, may tax severely not only our financial 
resources, but heart, and will, and brain. But is this a dis- 
advantage ? 



APPENDIX XIV 

SHOP COMMITTEES AND LABOUR BOARDS 

By Arthur Gleason 

(Reprinted from the Survey, May, 191 7.) 

What is the workshop council? The head of one of the 
largest cocoa manufactories in the world has sent us the details 
of his council, as now in operation in the almond paste de- 
partment. The cocoa business is not the best field for study- 
ing workers' control, because the labour is largely female, be- 
cause the industry is not nationally organised like the build- 
ing and engineering trades, and because the experiment is 
only in its beginning. But with a new application of a prin- 
ciple, we have to take it where we find it and push on with 
the experiment. 

The departments of the factory have well defined sections, 
so each section has a sub- or sectional council. The number 
of delegates for each sectional council is fixed on the basis 
of one delegate for every twelve workers (of whatever age) 
or part of twelve exceeding six, employed in the section. Sit- 
ting with these at the meetings of each sectional council and 
having equal powers with them, are the manager of the de- 
partment with the head and sub-overlookers, monitors or 
chargemen of the particular section. Should these, however 
(including the manager), exceed in number the workers' dele- 
gates, the members of the council representing the adminis- 
tration consist of the manager and head overlookers, together 
with as many of the sub-overlookers, chargemen and monitors 
(elected by ballot amongst themselves) as are required to 
make up a number equal to that of the workers' delegates. 
The manager of the department is ex-officio chairman of the 
sectional councils. He does not have a casting vote. In case 
of a drawn vote the matter is submitted to the director con- 
trolling the department. 

In addition, there will be one delegate appointed by each 



APPENDIX XIV 489 

union concerned (for the men's sectional councils from the 
men's union, and for the women's sectional councils from the 
women's union), who shall be allowed to speak but shall have 
no vote. Such delegates shall be deemed to hold a watching 
brief for the union, but shall be in the employment of the 
firm and working in the department, and preferably, though 
not necessarily, in the section. 

The departmental council is a distinct body from the sec- 
tional councils and consists of one member for every fifty 
workers (or part of fifty exceeding twenty-five), with an 
equal number of the administrative staff, namely, manager, 
head overlookers, sub-overlookers, monitors and chargemen. 
Where these exceed the workers, the members representing 
the administration will consist of the manager and head over- 
lookers, together with as many of the sub-overlookers, charge- 
men and monitors (elected by ballot amongst themselves), 
as are required to make up a number equal to that of the 
workers' delegates. 

At the meetings of the departmental councils there will 
also be one delegate appointed by the union representing the 
men and one by the union representing the women, who shall 
be allowed to speak, but shall have no votes. Such delegates 
shall be deemed to hold a watching brief for the union, but 
shall be in the employment of the firm and working in the 
department. 

Further, the workers are entitled to have the attendance 
of a permanent official of their union, not necessarily in the 
employment of the firm, during the discussion of any matter 
on which they consider that they should have skilled assist- 
ance and advice. Any such official attending a departmental 
council meeting shall withdraw as soon as the matter is dis- 
posed of upon which his or her advice has been required. 

Nothing that takes place at a sectional or departmental 
council shall prejudice the trade union in raising any ques- 
tion in the ordinary way. Questions of general principle, such 
as the working week, wage standards and general wage rules, 
shall not be within the jurisdiction of the councils. 

All male employees over twenty-one years of age and all 
female employees over sixteen, who have been employed by 
the firms for six months (whether on the regular staff or not), 
will be eligible to vote for delegates to both the sectional or 
departmental councils and to become members of such coun- 



490 APPENDIX XIV 

cils. Delegates are elected to serve for one year. They will 
be eligible for re-election so long as they remain in the em- 
ployment of the company. No deduction will be made from 
the wages of day-workers for the time occupied as delegates 
in attending the council meetings, and piece-workers will re- 
ceive an average wage for the time so occupied. 

Based on this constitution, the sectional and departmental 
councils in the almond paste department work out as follows: 

SECTIONAL 

There are six sectional councils as under : 
Women (i) Bottoms and centres. 

(2) Pipers and coverers. 

(3) Makers. 

(4) Packers and labellers. 

Men (5) Slab, machine and boiling (4th floor). 

(6) Crystallising and piping (5th floor), cage and carting 
(3rd floor). 

The number of delegates for each of these councils work 
out thus: 

No. of 

(1) Bottoms and Centres delegates 

Bottoms — Room 1 2 

Bottoms — Room 2 2 

Centres — Room I 3 

Centres — Room 2 1 

Total 8 

(2) Pipers and coverers 

Room 1 II 

Room 2 5 

Total 16 

(3) Makers 6 

(4) Packers and labellers 

Packers 9 

Labellers 2 

Total II 

(5) Slab, machine and boiling (4th floor) 5 

(6) Crystallising and Piping (5th floor) 6 

Cage and carting (3rd floor) I 

Total 7 



APPENDIX XIV 491 

The number of delegates to the departmental council is 
shown below: 

No. of 

Bottoms and centres delegates 

Bottoms — Rooms 1 and 2 1 

Centres — Rooms 1 and 2 1 

Pipers and coverers 

Room 1 3 

Room 2 1 

Makers 2 

Packers and labellers 2 

Slab, machine and boiling (4th floor) 1 

Crystallising and piping (5th floor) and cage and cart- 
ing (3rd floor) 1 

Total 12 

What are the matters dealt with by these works coun- 
cils? 

(1) The criticism of any piece wages not thought to be fair or 
adequate, and the consideration of suggestions for adjustment. 

(2) The consideration of conditions and hours of work in the 
department. 

(3) The consideration of departmental organisation and pro- 
duction. 

(4) Rules and descipline. 

In the Engineering Trades 

The engineering trades are perfecting a similar system of 
workers' control. F. S. Button, formerly of the executive 
council of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and G. D. H. 
Cole have drawn up the outline. 



SHOP COMMITTEES 

The committee comprises representatives from the management 
and the workpeople in equal numbers. The management choose 
their own representatives. The workpeople elect by ballot their 
representatives. Care should be taken that the trade unions shall 
be represented. Each side appoints its own chairman and secretary. 
Each side submits its agenda to the other for discussion at joint 
meetings which should be held weekly during workshop hours to 
deal with: 

1. Improved methods of manufacture, tools, jigs, gauges, and to 
make suggestions thereon; also new methods of production; 



492 APPENDIX XIV 

2. Class of labour to be used on new types or reconstructed ma- 
chines ; 

3. Criticism and adjustment in existing piece-work prices; 

4. Co-operation with the management in supervision; 

5. Shop troubles and grievances ; 

6. Suspensions and dismissals consequent upon slackness in trade ; 

7. Shop rules — timekeeping, meal hours, cleaning time, clock al- 
lowances, changes in starting time; 

8. Suggestions to change the method of remuneration from day 
work to piece work or a bonus system, or vice versa; 

9. The problem of the disabled soldier; 

10. Matters relating to welfare; 

11. Demarcation between trades with the free sanction of the 
unions concerned; 

12. Advise generally on labour and workshop conditions. 

The committee must not interfere with recognised trade union 
practices nor deal with matters covered by agreements, except with 
approval of the parties concerned. 

Where it is necessary owing to the complex organisation of the 
works to set up more than one shop committee, a 

CENTRAL WORKS COUNCIL 

shall be formed from the shop committee. 

The basis of representation shall in each case be the same. The 
board of directors shall appoint the chairman for its side, the trade 
union shall choose a representative workman as chairman for the 
side of the workpeople. The council shall sit during factory hours 
to deal with : 

1. Reports from shop committees; 

2. Refer back unadopted portions of report to shop committee 
concerned ; 

3. Decide matters from such reports which affect the factory as 
a whole as distinct from the shop ; 

4. Generally to assist the management in matters relating to pro- 
duction and organisation ; 

5. To initiate reforms arising out of new legislation affecting 
factories and workshops ; 

6. Assist after the war period in the resumption of existing laws ; 

7. Consider matters referred to them by the board of directors or 
the workpeople's side of the workshop committees ; 

8. To appoint a representative from each side of the council to 
sit with the board of directors when reports from the council are 
being considered. 

No workshop committee or works council shall have any power to 
impose any restriction on the employers or workpeople either with 
regard to lock-outs or strikes, or to institute any system of profit- 
sharing or co-partnership. 

The council must not interfere with recognised trade union prac- 
tices nor deal with matters covered by agreements except with 
approval of the parties concerned. 



APPENDIX XIV 493 

LOCAL JOINT COMMITTEES 

The members shall consist of an equal number of employers and 
workpeople appointed by the employers' associations and by the 
trade union organisations in the district. 

Each side shall appoint a chairman and secretary. At local con- 
ferences each chairman shall preside over his own side. Each side 
shall be entitled to hold a preliminary meeting separately to consider 
and prepare its agenda and to discuss its policy on questions to be 
submitted to the local conferences. 

The committee shall meet at least fortnightly, and the following 
matters should be within its competence : 

1. References from each side of works council within its area; 

2. Codification, unification and amendment of working rules: 

(a) Holidays. 

(b) Sunday labour. 

(c) Overtime. 

(d) Shift systems. 

(e) Demarcation between classes of labour. 

3. Co-ordination of local workshop practice; 

4. General district matters relating to welfare work; 

5. Discuss, by mutual consent and reference, matters covered by 
existing agreements. 

6. Discuss relations between both sides not covered by existing 
agreements. 

In the period succeeding the war the committee should also be 
encouraged to settle by agreement : 

1. Questions arising out of the restoration of trade union condi- 
tions including questions of priority, of employment and the resto- 
ration of trade union rules and customs ; 

2. Problems of the employment of disabled soldiers and sailors ; 

3. Questions relating to demobilisation and the discharge and re- 
employment of emergency workers. 

The committee shall take no action that contravenes any agree- 
ment between employers and the trade unions, whether such agree- 
ment be local or national in character. 

CENTRAL CONCILIATION BOARD 

Such board shall be set up in each industry and shall be repre- 
sentative of the central executive of employers and the trade union 
or unions concerned; 

The representation shall be equal in numbers, each side having 
the right to appoint a chairman and secretary. 

Each side shall be entitled to hold a preliminary meeting to con- 
sider and discuss its policy on the agenda. 

The matters competent for discussion shall be confined to : 

1. Appeals from the local joint committees; appeals may be made 
by each side of the local joint committees. Representatives from 
the local joint committees shall attend in a consultative capacity, 
but shall not sit in session or take official part in the proceedings ; 

2. Discuss relations between employers and workpeople not cov- 



494 APPENDIX XIV 

ered by existing agreements ; no new agreements to be arranged 
without the full concurrence of all parties concerned; 

3. Act as a permanent advisory board to the government on all 
questions affecting the industry, and to be empowered to suggest 
alterations, modifications and additions to existing laws, or fresh 
enactments required; 

4. Such proposed new legislation or amendments to existing laws 
to be submitted to the department of state concerned ; 

5. In the event of such department of state refusing to accept in 
whole or part such proposals, the central conciliation board should 
have the right to appeal to the Cabinet and to state its reasons for 
tabling its proposals ; 

6. The Cabinet shall not have the absolute right to veto without 
an appeal and vote in the House of Commons, on the question 
raised. 

BENEFITS RESULTING TO INDUSTRY 



Harmony in the factory, workshop or mine. 



Assurance of industrial peace. 

Would give the worker a real chance to achieve responsibility. 

Guarantee of continuity of labour. 

5. Tend to abolish the spirit of antagonism and distrust. 

6. Greater productivity in the workshop. 
Would provide the missing link in industry — co-operation. 
Bring about a real community of interest between employers 

and workpeople, and secure co-ordination of the whole factory sys- 
tem so far as the workshop is concerned. 

The executive committee of the National Union of Rail- 
waymen have drawn up their demand. "At each large shop 
centre there shall be formed a local shops committee. There 
shall be a central committee for each railway. There shall be 
established on each railway a conciliation board." The fol- 
lowing is an example of the method of constituting the board: 

No. of 
No. of represen- 
Groups of grades men tatives 

(a) Engine drivers, firemen, cleaners, electric 

motormen 7,5oo 4 

(b) Shed men, electric light men, hydraulic 

men, etc 1,900 I 

(c) Carriage and wagon examiners, washers, 

etc 1,200 1 

(d) Signalmen, etc 3,ioo 2 

(e) Guards, shunters, etc, 4,3<x> 2 

(f) General porters, parcels, staff, etc 3,Soo 2 

(g) Goods shed and yard staff 4,500 2 

(h) Cartage staff 3,700 2 

( i) Platelayers 4,600 2 

( j ) Ballast men, etc 2,000 1 

(k) Signal and telegraph men, etc 500 1 



APPENDIX XIV 495 

A builders' national industrial parliament has been advo- 
cated by the National Associated Building Trades Council, 
representing the national executives of the principal trade 
unions in the industry. The constitution calls for works com- 
mittees, representing management and labour in particular 
shops, for joint district boards, and for a national parliament, 
where sit twenty members appointed by the Nationel Federa- 
tion of Building Trades Employers of Great Britain and Ire- 
land, and twenty members appointed by the National Associated 
Building Trades Council. 

So enters the principle of self-government in industry. This 
is totally different from compulsory arbitration, though often 
confused with it. Arbitration deals with matters that have 
reached the boiling point. A joint board deals with process 
and relationship before friction has developed, and thus keeps 
clear of that region in men's minds where emotion is kindled 
and where matters of fact are heated into matters of prin- 
ciple. Once a question of fact has become a "matter of princi- 
ple," it is always difficult and often impossible for arbitration 
boards to deal with it. This sharp distinction must be real- 
ised, because on its recognition hinges the change in the status 
of the worker. By government and private action he is now 
being admitted to a place in deciding on the next step, before 
the next step is taken. Many employers wish a scheme of 
compulsory arbitration, with penal clauses against striking. 
The trade unions will not consent, because they do not care 
for industrial harmony by compulsion. A number of employ- 
ers will offer co-partnerships and profit-sharing. The trade 
unions will not consent. Talk of national efficiency and world 
markets alone will not win the trade unions. To meet their 
opposition, a measure of control must be granted to them. So 
joint standing councils of employers and employed have already 
been formed and will continue to be formed, to secure increased 
productivity in industry and a better status for labour. . . . 

The government accepted the principle of self-government 
in industry when in the crisis of 191 5, Mr. Tennant, repre- 
senting the government, summoned the labour leaders to or- 
ganise the forces of labour. The employers and the govern- 
ment were helpless unless aided by the workers themselves. 
On that day, February 8, 191 5, the principle of democratic 
control in industry was established in the modern state. This 
system of joint committees had indeed long existed in the 



496 APPENDIX XIV 

leading trades, where employers and union leaders met to set- 
tle disputes. But the white flag of truce was over the confer- 
ence, while, outside, the battle raged. But Mr. Tennant by his 
bold measure raised the joint committee to the level of con- 
tinuous mediation and consultation. . . . 

The joint board is part of the machinery for reconstruction. 
The acceptance of it is an acceptance of the principle of 
democratic control. 

What labour can manage and possesses the right to manage, 
but has not received the permission to manage, are the condi- 
tions of its own life — its working life and its leisure life. The 
installation of new processes, the introduction of new machin- 
ery, the injection of new workers — all these alterations of 
working conditions have been imposed upon the workers as 
one puts a new harness on a horse, or shifts him from the 
plough to the tread-mill. The workers have built up their own 
system of protective devices to meet these impositions of the 
oligarchy in control of them. They have limited the output 
by "going gently" with the work. They have limited the 
number of apprentices. They have practised sabotage and 
called strikes. They had no other weapons. The result of 
these protective devices has been to lessen the volume of 
production, to give capital a smaller return on its investment 
and to cut down wages. The policy has been bad for employer 
and employe. But the policy has received its death blow in 
this new constitution of labour which I have outlined. Self- 
government will not offer grave difficulties in the twelve or 
fifteen highly organised trades, where organised co-operation 
is understood. It will come much more slowly in the un- 
skilled occupations. . . . 

But almost at one stroke, this principle of self-government 
has been greatly extended. It is all part of the general move- 
ment toward the organised state. The employers will form 
great combines. The workers will continue to develop the 
strength of trade unions and will exercise that strength in 
the control of their working conditions. In the next five years 
workers' control will be the most discussed item in England's 
reconstruction. Because it is in line with democratic tendency, 
the movement will soon spread to our country. It is time that 
our statesmen, our social experts, our writers and our indus- 
trial leaders begin to study it. 



INDEX 



Addison, Dr., 178, 193 

Aliens in America, 307 

Allied diplomacy, 79 

Allied governments, labor pressure 
on, for war aims statement, 320 

Allied labor unity, 273 

Amalgamated Society of Engi- 
neers, 199 ; constitution, 160, 161 ; 
outline of workers' control, 179 

American aliens and immigrant 
groups, 307 

American Alliance of Labor and 
Democracy, 249, 266, 267, 268, 
308 

American-Allied conference, Lon- 
don, Sept., 1918, 238 

American delegates to England, 
249 

American Federation, of Labor, 44, 
57, 125, 214; attitude toward in- 
ternational conference proposals, 
230; Blackpool meeting, 28; del- 
egation to visit England, 249; 
difficulties of communication 
with British labor, 241 ; invita- 
tions to European conferences, 
236-237; "Labor's War Aims," 
239; London conference state- 
ment on, 300; open diplomacy, 
230; peace terms, 238; political 
activity, 280-281 ; position as to 
British labor, 240; position in- 
terpreted by James Wilson, 251 ; 
Stockholm project, 236 

American Federationist, 126, 230; 
cables regarding international 
labor conference, 230 

American labor, antithesis to Brit- 
ish, 255 ; coming into line, 273 ; 
on the wrong side, 266; out of 
it, 230 

American labor bodies, 125 

American labor movement, 126, 
1^7; statement at London con- 
ference, 288 



American public opinion, 306-307 

Ammon, C. G., on Gompers' pro- 
posal, 19 

Anderson, Mrs. W. C. See Mac- 
arthur, Mary 

Anderson, W. C., 40; on industrial 
conscription, 132-133 

Anthony, Susan B., 141 

Appleton, W. A., 57, 231, 244, 248; 
interview, 249 

Arbeit er-Zeitung, 318 

Asquith, H. H., 269 

Austria-Hungary, unrest, 310 

Austrian peace note, 305, 321 

Autocracy vs. democracy, 296-297 

Baine, C. L., 288 

Balfour, A. J., 159 

Barnes, G. N., 226; on breaking 
the truce, 117; on Stockholm 
conference, 13; War Cabinet 
labor delegates to America, 

244 
Barr & Stroud, 184 
Belgian Labor Party, action at 

London conference, 63-64, 66 
Belgian Prince (ship), 22 
Belgium, 297, 298, 301 
Berger, Victor, 282 
Berne, 285 ; International meeting 

proposed for Sept., 1917, 232 
Birmingham, 208 
Birmingham meeting, 1916, 18 
Blackpool meeting, Sept., 1917, 16, 

20; Henderson's speech, 27 
Bolsheviki, 6, 7, 8, 62, 88 
Bondfield, Margaret, 115, 140, 141, 

202 
Boycotting Germany, 224; sailors, 

261 
Branting, Hjalmar, 86, 87; at June, 

1918, conference, 99, 101 
Brest-Litovsk, 8, 17, 62, 89, 96, 293, 

294 
Bridgeman, Mr., 189 
Britannic Alliance, 224 



497 



498 



INDEX 



British delegates to America, 244 

British Socialists. See Socialists 

British Workers' League, 34 

Bromley, J., 115; at Blackpool 
meeting, 23 

Buffalo convention, Nov., 1917, 238 

Bulgarian United Social Demo- 
cratic Party, 316 

Burnage Works, 181, 184 

Burns, John, 40 

Button, F. S., 179 

Cachin, M., 292 

Canada, 28 

Canepa, 63 

Cardiff, 212, 226 

Carter, W., 12 

Caxton Hall meeting, 258, 259 

Central Empires, Wilson's call to 
working classes of, 309 

Central Hall, Westminster, adop- 
tion of war aims memorandum, 
28; conference of Aug. 10, 1917, 
12; Memorandum on War Aims, 
adopted Feb. 20-24, 1918, 29, 67, 
352 ; Statement of War Aims, 
adopted at joint conference, Dec. 
28, 1917, 343 

Cheradame, Andre, 79 

Christian Commonwealth, 254 

Churchill, Winston, 125 

Civic Federation. See National 
Civic Federation 

Civil offensive, fruits, 322 

Clyde Workers' Committee, 161, 
162 

Clynes, J. R., at Blackpool meet- 
ing, 25 ; at Nottingham meeting, 
43; biographical sketch, 120; in 
controversy, 123 ; interview in 
June, 1918, 122; message to rail- 
way strikers, 212; on breaking 
the truce, 118; on food control, 
120; on labor setting an exam- 
ple, 271; personality, 118, 121 

Cocoa firms, 185 

Cole, G. D. H., 155, 164, 174, 179, 
193, 335, 336 

Collective bargaining, 127, 180 

Collectivism, 333, 335 

"Common sense," 128 

Communal idea in labor policy, 339 

Compromise, British genius for, 
266 

Conference projects, characteris- 
tics of British labor, 17 

Conscientious objectors, 132 



Conscription, Thomas and the 
Irish crisis, 205 

Conscription of wealth, 135, 136, 
336 

Constitution of the British Labour 
Party, 367 

Control. See Self-government in 
industry 

Cooperative movement, 143; aims 
of members, 144-145; conference 
of Oct., 1917, 144 

Cotter, J., 22 

Coventry, 207 

Cramp, C. T., no 

Crises, 333-334 

Czechs, 86 

Daily News, on the British dele- 
gates to America, 248; on the 
London conference, 78 

Davis, W. J., 201 ; at Caxton Hall 
meeting, 258-259 

Debs, E. V., 282, 297 

Democracy, autocracy vs., 296-297; 
diplomacy of, 300-301 ; industrial, 
194; place in reconstruction, 333; 
test, 305, 326; triumph in Sept. y 
1918, 305 

Deportation, 163 

Derby meeting of 1918, 25; Gom- 
pers, 285, 286; resolution for a 
trade union party, 266; speakers 
and discussions, 197 

"Dilution," 152, 157, 162 

Diplomacy, new vs. old, 326 

Diplomacy of labor, democratic 
results, 300-301, 305-306; replies 
from German and other minor- 
ity groups, 316 

Diplomatic offensive, results, 322 

Drake, Mrs. Barbara, 155 

Duncan, James, 236, 249 

Easley, R. M., 245 

Education, 131 

Elections. See General elections 

Embargoes, 207; situation from 
different angles, 208 

Employers, new type, 181 ; sum- 
mary of conclusions of group of 
Quaker employers, 477 

Engineering trades, conference of 
employers and employees, Dec, 
1917, 165; unions, 160; women 
in, 152, 157 

England, old order and new, 136; 
political and industrial develop- 
ments, 105 



INDEX 



499 



English Round Table, 85 

Europe, labor movement in West- 
ern, 334 

Fairchild, E. C, 31 

Finance, democratic, 135, 136 

Fisher, Victor, 34, 257 

Fitch, J. A., 308 

Foch, Marshal, 66 

Food control, J. R. Clynes on, 120 

Force, 82, 323 

Franklin, Benjamin, 273 

Freedom, restrictions on, 132, 133 

Freedom of the press, 308 

French Socialists, 62, 63, 91, 92 

Frey, J. P., 296, 297 

Friends. See Quaker employers 

Garton Foundation, 159 

Garvin, J. L., 271 

Gaunt (Reuben), & Sons, 189 

General elections, Dec, 1918, 223; 
Labour Party's platform, 413; 
results, 269 

General Federation of Trade 
Unions, 18, 56, 201 

German boycott. See Boycotting 

German people vs. German govern- 
ment, 306, 309, 324 

German Social Democratic Party 
of Austria, 318, 320 

German workers, 240, 251, 254, 255 

Germany, Majority Socialists, 311, 
315 ; Socialism, 65, 335 ; Social- 
ism, rift, 313; unrest and upris- 
ing, 310 

Glasgow, 163 

Glazier, Bruce, 267 

Gleason, Arthur, Shop Committees 
and Labour Boards (reprinted 
from the Survey, May, 1917), 
488 

Glenn, General, 307 

Golden, John, 28 

Gompers, Samuel,- 13, 249; address 
on Feb. 22, 1918, 83; at Derby, 
Sept., 1918, 196-197, 200; cable- 
grams to French and to British 
labor, 234; circular, 18; com- 
pared to Franklin, 273 ; ex- 
changes with German labor, 230; 
"Garbled text" cablegram, 241 ; 
Henderson and, 237 ; leadership, 
283 ; part in the London confer- 
ence, 275, 302, 303 ; personality, 
274, 276, 277; policy, 126 

Government and labor delegations, 
250 



Government Commission of In- 
quiry into Industrial Unrest, 157 

Governments, labor pressure on Al- 
lied, to state war aims, 320 

"Gray hairs," 128 

Greenwood, G. A., 193 

Guild-Socialists, 336 

Hall, Martin, 185 

Hanley, 225 

Hardie, Keir, 33 

Hartshorn, Vernon, 168, 173 

Health, 131 

Henderson, Arthur, 6; at Black- 
pool meeting, 27; at Derby meet- 
ing, 200; at June conference, 
1918, on breaking truce, 114; at 
Oldham, 228; central policy, 267; 
German estimate and American 
radical estimate, 268; Gompers 
and, 237; link of various ele- 
ments, 49; on adoption of war 
aims memorandum, 29; on war 
and peace (Feb., 1918), 204; per- 
sonality, 50, 94, 95 ; resignation 
from War Cabinet, 16, 53 ; Rus- 
sian views in Aug., 1917, 11; 
speech at luncheon of London 
Conference, 78-79 

Henson, J., 21 

Hertling cabinet, 315 

Highton, Herbert, 157 

Hill, J., on war aims memoran- 
dum, 31 

Hillquit, Morris, 282 

Hobson, J. A., 339 

Hobson, S. G., 335, 336 

Hodge, John, 50; to the iron and 
steel workers, at Hanley, 225 

Hotchkiss Co., 207-208 

House, Colonel, 275 

Hughes, W. M., 261, 263, 327, 340; 
at Cardiff, 226 

Hungarian Social Democratic 
Party, 317, 320 

Huysmans, Camille, 311; at Not- 
tingham meeting, 86, 87 

Immigrant groups in America, 307 

Imperial Federation, 224 

Independent Labour Party, inde- 
pendence, 219; leaders, 40; left 
and, 33 ; Leicester conference 
and soldiers' charter, 216; peace 
resolution, 216, 218; resolution 
on the war, 49 

Independent Social Democratic 
party of Germany, 319 



506 



INDEX 



Individualism, 336, 337, 338, 341 

Industrial conscription, 133 

Industrial councils, 149, 190; gov- 
ernment and, 191 ; Industrial 
Councils and Trade Boards : 
Memorandum by the Minister of 
Reconstruction and the Minister 
of Labour, 440; need for, 192; 
See also Whitley Reports 

Industrial unionism. See Trade 
unionism 

Industrial unrest, 137, 151, 155; 
causes, 157-158, 337 

I. W. W., 282 

Industry, democratic control, 134, 
!53; reorganization, 134; see also 
Self-government in industry 

Inter-Allied conference in London, 
Aug. 21, 1917, 44, 56 

Inter- Allied labor meeting in 191 5, 
76 

Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist 
Conferences at London, 1917-18, 
56, 61, 94; composition and dele- 
gates, 286; five commissions and 
their officers, 64, 65; harmoniz- 
ing of principles, 340; Manches- 
ter Guardian on, 71 ; platform, 
67; Socialism the crux, 278; 
Times on, 72 

Inter-Allied trade union confer- 
ence of Sept. 10, 1917, 233 

Interbelligerent conference, Amer- 
ican and British positions, 304; 
passport question, 302, 303, 308; 
project and issue, 289, 292 

International Federation of Trades 
Unions, 230 

International labor conference, 
300; American labor position as 
shown in the Federationist, 230; 
German obstacle, 301 ; MacDon- 
ald's vision, 85 

International Socialist Bureau, 33, 
66; conference of Aug. 21, 1917, 
16 

Internationale, 265 

Ireland, 205 

Iron and steel workers, 225 

Italian Socialists, 62 

Jingo press, 6, 76 

Jingoism, 98 

Joint memorandum. See under 
War aims 

Joint standing industrial councils. 
See Whitley Reports 






Jones, Jack, 19, 115, 263 

Jowett, F. W., 40 

Jubilee year of the Trades Union 
Congress, 197 

Jugo-Slavs, 63 

Kautsky, Karl, 311 

Keighley, 113 

Kerensky, at Labour Party confer- 
ence, June, 1918, 90, 94, 95, 96,97 

Kipling, 146 

Kirkwood, David, 161, 162, 336 

Kneeshaw, J. W., 296, 298 

Kropotkin, Prince, 333 

Labor boards. See Shop Commit- 
tees, etc. 

Labor formations, various, 18 

Labor members of the coalition, 
220, 336 

Labor movement, American. See 
American, etc. 

Labor movement, British, Amer- 
ican antithesis, 255 ; American 
comparison, 52; democratic prin- 
ciples, 309 ; early development, 3 ; 
England as contrasted with other 
countries, 7; extreme left and 
extreme right, 291 ; extreme 
right motivations, 228; joint 
statement of Oct. 9, 1918, 325; 
leaders, 173, 266, 335; leadership, 
340; majority course, 292; offen- 
sive (rise of international pol- 
icy), 3; organizing sentiment, 56; 
peace objectives — summary, 83- 
84; personal, 53; pressure on Al- 
lied governments for war aims 
statement, 320; separatist move- 
ments, 220; so-called split, 257; 
support of President Wilson's 
course, 325; tendency, 335; three 
steps, 9, 334; unity, 273, 285, 298; 
vitality, 341 ; working class opin- 
ion, 54 

Labor movement in Western Eu- 
rope, 334 

Labor representation at peace ta- 
ble, 300, 304 

"Labor's War Aims," 239 

Labour, Minister of, Memoran- 
dum, etc., 440 

Labour and the New Social Or- 
der, 42, 45, 125, 224, 372 

Labour Leader, 99 

Labour Party, British, breaking of 
truce with the government, in; 
central policy, 267; constitution 



INDEX 



Soi 



as adopted by the party confer- 
ence held in London, Feb. 21, 
1918, 367; election in June, 1918, 
257; gains in general election, 
270; London conference, June, 
1918, 94, 113, 128, 221, 395; make- 
up, 7; membership fluctuations, 
1900-1917, 107; new majority in, 
11; Nottingham meeting, 42 (See 
also Nottingham meeting) ; ob- 
jects set forth, 106; organizers 
of its central strength, 25 ; plat- 
form at General Election, Dec, 
1918, 413; political nature, 107; 
reconstruction resolutions adopt- 
ed June 26, 1918, 395; reorgan- 
ization in 1918, 105 ; resolution of 
April, 1918, 75; rising power, 
145-146; Socialism reported to 
America, 278; summary of prin- 
ciples, 336 

Labour War Aims, 45 

Labour Women, 142 

Land, 337 

Lansbury, George, 33, 40 

Law, Bonar, 188; on conscription 
of wealth, 135 

Leading strings for labor, 244 

League of Nations, 68, 69, 71, 73, 
224, 228 

Left, swing toward, 35, 45, 149, 216, 
219 

Legien, Carl, 230, 231 

Legislation, 11 1 

Leicester conference, 216, 219 

Liberties, 337, 338 

Life, control of, 334 

Litvinoff, on Russia, at Notting- 
ham, 88 

Lloyd George, David, on Gompers, 
276; on statement of war aims, 
29, 32; personality, 137-138; 
Treasury Agreement, 153 

London Conference. See Inter-Al- 
lied Labour and Socialist Con- 
ferences, etc. 

London strike, 1918, 207 

London Times. See Times 

Longuet, Jean, at Nottingham 
meeting, 93 ; on Russia, 294 ; per- 
sonality and address on jingoism, 
98 

Lord, James, 28 

Macarthur, Mary (Mrs. W. C. An- 
derson), 140, 141 

MacDonald, Ramsay, at Leicester 



conference, 216; at Nottingham 
meeting, 84; interview at Not- 
tingham, 38; on reconstruction, 
129; on Stockholm conference, 
14; personal appearance, 93; 
stand on war issues, 40 

Machines, automatic, 151 

McKerrell, T., 19 

McManus, 163 

Mallon, J. J., 188 

Manchester Guardian, 71, 77> 3 X 3 

Masaryk, T. G., 307 

Maurice, General, 323 

Maximalists and Minimalists, 90 

Maxton, J., 297 

Memorandum. See under War 
aims 

Merchant Seamen's League, 261 

Middleton, James, 125 

Militarism, 78 

Military force vs. diplomatic, 324 

Miller, H. A., 307 

Milner, Lord, 55 

Miners, 138, 168; conditions in the 
industry, 169; in the war, 170 

Miners' Federation, 168 

Minimum wage, 156, 186 

Ministry, labor members, 220 

Mitchell, John, 245 

Monopolies, 134 

Mooney case, 297 

Morning Post, 259, 260, 270 

Munition workers, 157 

Munitions, accelerating output, 153 

Munitions of War Act, 155, 162 

Murphy, J. T., 166 

Nation (London), on Gompers, 285 

Nation (New York), 308 

National Civic Federation, 245 

National Council of the Pottery 
Industry, 449 

National Federation of Women 
Workers, 156 

National Federation of Working 
Women, 141 

National Guild, 180, 336 

Nationality of labor, 128 

Naylor, T. E., 263 

New Age, The, 181 

New Republic, 77, 125 

New Social Order. See Labour 
and the New Social Order 

New Statesman, 47, 53 

New York Tribune, 278, 280 

Newcastle strike, 156 

Newport, 210, 211 



502 



INDEX 



Newspapers, Nottingham, 46 

"No annexations and no indemni- 
ties," 13, 34, 65, 234 

Nottingham, 45 

Nottingham meeting of Jan., 1918, 
35, 42, 372; international labor 
conference, absentees, 85, 86; 
resolutions on war aims, 50 

Observer, The, 260, 271 

Ogden, J. W., 61 ; at Derby meet- 
ing, 198; on labor split, 260; on 
world brotherhood, 341 

Old order and the new, 326 

Oldham, 228 

Open diplomacy of labor, 253 

Opinion, L', on Gompers, 274 

Orage, A. R., 335 

"Our country," 128 

Pacifism, 163 

Pankhurst, Mrs., 202 

Pankhurst, Sylvia, 116 

Parkhead Engineering Works, 161, 
162 

Parliament and labor representa- 
tion, no, III 

Passports, 202, 302, 303, 308 

Patriotism, 128 

Patterson, Miss, 141 

Peace, American Federation of 
Labor formulation, 238; ground- 
work, 299; I. L. P. resolution, 
216, 218; President Wilson's ad- 
dress of Sept. 27, 1918, 321, 327; 
resolution at Derby meeting, 264 

Peace Conference, labor represen- 
tation, 300 

Peace proposals, labor's joint state- 
ment, Oct. 9, 1918, 325 

Peace without victory, 218 

Petrograd, 236 

Phoenix Dynamo Co., 184 

Piece rate, 155 

Platform. See under Labour 
Party 

Ploughshares, 74 

Political action, American Federa- 
tion of Labor, 280-281 ; labor or- 
ganizations united for, 145 ; rise 
in labor movement, no; variance 
of British and American labor 
policies, 127 

Political rights, 133 

Politics, labor, 221 

Pottery industry, National Coun- 
cil, objects and constitution, 449 

Product, control of, 193 



Prohibition, 138" 

Protective tariff, 339 

Prussian-Australianism, 339 

Prussianism, industrial, 159 

Purdy, W. F, at Nottingham meet- 
ing, 48; on reconstruction, 129 

Quaker employers, summary of 
conclusions reached, 477 

Railway unions, 172 

Railwaymen's flare-up, 209 

Reactionaries, 255 

Reconstruction, democracy's work, 
333 ; draft report submitted at 
Nottingham, Jan. 23-25, 1918, 
372; economic reforms, 133-134; 
labor report on, 125 ; labor's ap- 
proach, 130; resolutions adopted 
by the conference of the Labour 
Party, London, June 26, 1918, 
395; Smillie on, 176; unity of la- 
bor parties, 128-129 

Reconstruction, Minister of, Mem- 
orandum, etc., 440 

"Red Flag," 44 

Rees, David, 28 

Renaudel, Pierre, at June, 1918, 
conference, 97; at Nottingham, 
91-92 

Renold, C. G., 181, 183; Workshop 
Committees — Suggested Lines of 
Development (from the Survey, 
Oct. 6, 1918), 452 

Representation of the People Act, 
105 

Restrictions on freedom, 132 

Revenue, 135 

Revolution, 333 

Revolutionary forces, 334 

Revolutionists, 139 

Roberts, George H., 112, 190, 208, 
261; on Gompers, 276; on Gom- 
pers' proposal, 20; on Stockholm 
conference, 13; on the war aims 
memorandum, 226 

Robinson, W. C, 12 

Rolls-Royce works, 184 

Root, Elihu, on British Labour 
Party, 112 

Root Mission, 236 

Roubanovitch, 88 

Round Table, 85 

Rowntree, Seebohm, 189 

Russell, C. E., 308 

Russia, 236; committee from, 259; 
committee to visit, n ; Gompers' 
greetings, 234; Henderson's 



INDEX 



503 



views in Aug., 1917, it; interven- 
tion, 293, 294; Kerensky on, 96; 
labor opinion on government 
mishandling, 54; Litvinoff on the 
workers and revolution, 88; res- 
olution on, at London confer- 
ence, 293 ; Times on, 294 

Safeguards of labor, lost, 151, 158 

Sailors' and Firemen's Union, 21 

Sailors' boycott, 261 

St. Paul convention, 278, 280, 284 

Scheidemann, Philip, 268, 314, 315 

Scientific management, 180 

Secret treaties, 76, 82, 297 

Seddon, J. A., 257 

Self-determination, 68 

Self-government in industry, 178, 
338; extension, 194; programs, 
179-180 

Sexton, James, 12, 205, 291, 298 

Sherman, Camp, 307 

Shop Committees and Labour 
Boards (article by Arthur Glea- 
son, reprinted from the Survey, 
May, 191 7), 488 

Shop organization, 181 

Shop stewards, Amalgamated So- 
ciety of Engineers and, 161 ; ex- 
tension of movement, 163, 164; 
significance, 149, 164 

Shop stewards committees, 178- 
179, 181 

Smillie, Robert, 16, 145, 168, 173, 
!74, 335; a t June conference, 
1918, 115; at Nottingham conven- 
tion, 35; on reconstruction, 176; 
peace resolution of the I. L. P., 
216-217; personality, 114-115; 
personality and family, 169; re- 
election, 270 

Smuts, General, 316, 323 

"Sniping," 221, 226 

Snowden, Philip, on Stockholm 
conference, 34; position, 214, 220 

Social order, old and new, 130, 136 

Socialism, issue between American 
and British labor, 278 

Socialists, Allied, and Gompers, 
284 ;_ American, 281 ; English 
parties, 43; German rift, 313; 
Germany, majority, 311, 315; mi- 
nor British parties, 57 

Society, democratic control, 131 

Soldiers, returned, 139 

Soldiers' charter, 216 

State ownership, 176 



Status quo ante, 67, 228 

'Stockholm committee, Huysmans 
on, 87 

Stockholm conference, discussion 
on attending, 12; minority labor 
view, 34; "Socialist Stockholm" 
and "trade union Stockholm," 
235 

Stockholms, the two, 234 

Stoney, Gerald, 158 

Strikes, Clyde District, 162; Lon- 
don traction, 1918, 207; railway- 
men, 209; Treasury Agreement, 
153, 154 

Strong, H. O., & Sons, 184 

Stuart-Bunning, G. H., 286-287 

Submarines, 22, 263 

Suffrage. See Woman Suffrage 

Survey, The, 77, 452, 488 

Sword or ploughshare, 74 

Syndicalism, 334 

Taff Vale case, no, 172 

T'dglische Rundschau, 314 

Taxation, 135, 336, 337 

Telegraph, 119 

Tennant, H. J., 152 

Thomas, Albert, at London con- 
ference, Feb., 1918, 63 ; on 
French workers, 298; personal- 
ity, 98 

Thomas, J. H., 101, 172, 173; at 
Blackpool meeting, 24; at Derby, 
1918, 199; Dublin address, 205; 
on reconstruction, 129; on 
Stockholm conference, 15; on 
war aims memorandum, 31 ; 
peace resolution at Derby meet- 
ing, 264 ; personality, 53 ; railway 
strike, 209-210, 211, 212, 213 

Thorne, Will, 16, 20 

Tillett, Ben, 23 

Times, on Gompers at London 
Conference, 277, 286; on London 
Conference of Feb., 1918, 72, 77, 
78; on Russia, 294; on Stockholm 
conference, 15 

Trade boards. See under Indus- 
trial councils 

Trade Union Labour Party, pro- 
posed formation, 258 

Trade union officials, 164 

Trade unionism, 109, no, 168; 
latent power, 174; reorganization, 
175; trade unions, 107, 108; force 
of combinations, 176 ; influence in 



504 



INDEX 



Cabour Party, 267; membership, 
174; women's, 141 

Trades Union Congress, action on 
Stockholm conference, 16; jubi- 
lee year, 197; swing toward the 
left (three annual meetings, 1916- 
18), 18 

Treasury Agreement, 153 

Triple Alliance, 168, 172 

Triple Industrial Alliance, 177 

Troelstra, 94, 100, 315 

Trotsky, 7 

Truce, breaking, ill, 119 

Turner, Ben, on breaking the truce, 
118 

United States labor bodies and 
British policy, 126 

Unity and uniformity, 298 

Unskilled labor, 151, 157, 208 

Vandervelde, £mile, 247; at June, 
1918, conference, 99; at London 
conference, 74; at Nottingham, 
86, 90 

Vaughan, Crawford, 248 

Victory, 79, 253 

Vorwarts, 74, 311-312 

Wages, 132 ; standard, 155 

Walling, W. E., 247, 266, 268 

Walsh, Stephen, 31 

Wansbeck, 113, 115 

War, civil offensive results, 322; 
new tactics, 323-324 

War aims, 16, 298, 299: Allied la- 
bor's, 67; joint memorandum 
adopted at Central Hall, Feb. 20- 
24, 1918, 29, 67, 352; joint state- 
ment adopted at Central Hall, 
Dec. 28, 1 91 7, 343; labor and Al- 
lied governments, 320; Notting- 
ham resolutions, 50; Premier's 
letter, 29; President Wilson on 
(Sent. 27, 1918), 321, 327; Vor- 
warts on the memorandum, 311- 
312 

War Aims Committee at London 
conference, Sept., 1918, 296 

Watkins, W. H., 144 

Wealth, conscription of, 135, 136, 
336; socialization of, 337 

Webb, Sidney, 53, 337; on Hender- 
son's resignation, 53 ; personal 
appearance, 90; position, 335 

Whitefield, W., 116 



Whitley Committee, composition, 
185-186 

Whitley Committees, 167 

Whitley Reports, 149, 178, 183, 185, 
339; government and, 187; In- 
terim Report on Joint Standing 
Industrial Councils, 418; Second 
Report on Joint Standing Indus- 
trial Councils, 427; Supplemen- 
tary Report on Works Commit- 
tees, 436 

Williams, J. B., attempt to disrupt 
labor unity, 258 

Williams, Robert, 116, 173; at 
Blackpool meeting, 23 

Wilson, J. Havelock, 30, 208-209; at 
Blackpool meeting, 22; at Derby 
meeting, 198, 203; Hughes on, 
^61 ; in Scotland, 262 ; peace res- 
olution, 264 

Wilson, James, at Whitehall, April, 
1918, 251 ; misleading report of 
British conditions, 214 

Wilson, President, Baltimore 
speech in April, 1918, and ele- 
ments of his offensive, 80; call 
to working classes of Central 
Empires (Sept. 27, 1918), 309; 
four propositions of, Feb. 11, 
1918, 68; fourteen points, 8, 76, 
238, 273, 288, 299, 305, 321; lone 
hand, 309; war aims and peace 
(Sept. 27, 1918), 321, 327 

"Win the War," 128 

Woman suffrage, 142-143 

Woman's Trade Union League, 141 

Women, engineering trades, 152, 
157; movement in industry, 140- 
141 ; new wage-earning, 140 

Work for all, 337-338 

Workers' control, 147, 335, 338; see 
also Self-government in industry 

Workers' Union, 142 

Works Committees, Ministry of 
Labour on, 188; Whitley Report 
on Works Committees, 436 

Workshop Committees, Suggested 
Lines of Development (article by 
C. G. Renold from the Survey, 
Oct. 6, 1918), 452 

World labor congress. See Inter- 
national labor conference 

Wright, Chester, 249 

Zimmern, A. E., 145. 254 



3^77-2 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: «»^ 2001 

PreservationTechnologies 

' A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
I7?4\ 779-2111 



